ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Sexual Assault Referral Centres

Lynda Waltho: What funding her Department has allocated to sexual assault referral centres for 2009-10.

Alan Campbell: In 2009-10, £1.6 million has been allocated for sexual assault referral centres—SARCs. As part of the 2008 funding round, £659,000 was allocated, and a further £941,000 was announced on 15 April this year.

Lynda Waltho: I welcome that fantastic news about funding, but when I met women from Women's Aid a few weeks ago they were concerned that funding, although welcome, may be diverted from rape crisis centres and that they will continually have to reapply for funding from different pots of money. Will my hon. Friend reassure me that that will not happen? After all, rape crisis centres were set up for women, by women, for a specific function that is slightly different from that of sexual assault referral centres.

Alan Campbell: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. We value the work of rape crisis centres and SARCs, and that is why we continue to invest in both of them. However, it is right that we look at co-ordinating provision where possible to ensure that we make the best use of funding.

Water Cannon

Gordon Prentice: What discussions she has had with police forces on the use of water cannon by police forces in policing demonstrations.

Vernon Coaker: The Home Office, working with the police, keeps all less lethal technologies, including water cannon, under constant review. There are no plans to introduce water cannon at the present time.

Gordon Prentice: The police have been severely criticised for their kettling technique, which they used in the G20 demonstrations a few weeks ago. Will my friend assure me that there is no question whatever of the police using Tasers for crowd control?

Vernon Coaker: To reassure my hon. Friend, I have said to the Joint Committee on Human Rights that Tasers should not be used in public order control situations, and Tasers were not used during the G20 demonstrations. Officers equipped with Tasers raided a residence in an operation to arrest individuals suspected of criminal damage at the G20 protest. My hon. Friend makes an important point, however: there is a right to protest in this country, and Tasers are not appropriate for use in controlling such demonstrations.

Christopher Huhne: Three weeks ago, four environmental protesters dressed as suffragettes superglued themselves to a statue of Viscount Falkland in Parliament. They were arrested for demonstrating unlawfully, held in detention for a total of 18 hours and given hugely restrictive police bail conditions, such as not being allowed even any contact with each other, although they were friends. Does the Minister accept that there is widespread controversy about the way in which lawful and peaceful protests are policed—as evidenced by the solicitors of the climate camp protestors today echoing our call for a full judicial inquiry? Does he agree that an inquiry would provide useful public guidance to the police on policing lawful and peaceful protest?

Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman will know that there is always a balance to be struck between protest and the rights of law-abiding citizens to go about their business and the protection of property. That balance is difficult for the police sometimes to maintain, but notwithstanding the case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, we have an excellent example outside Parliament currently of the police dealing with quite a difficult situation—controlling the Tamil demonstration but at the same time trying as far as they can to allow access to Parliament. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, however, and he will know that Denis O'Connor, the chief of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, having been asked by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, will consider the whole issue of public order and tactics. We await that review with interest.

John Bercow: The Minister of State's reply to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) is both measured and reassuring. Can I invite the Minister of State to confer with his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in order that those Ministers can explain once and for all to the Government of Sri Lanka, a country that I recently visited, that the British police are not in the business of seeking to restrain or disperse protestors by the use of water cannon simply because they are holding placards or waving banners of which that Government happen to disapprove? It is not the British way.

Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The Foreign Office and Foreign Office Ministers are engaged in discussions with the demonstrators outside Parliament and, indeed, with the Sri Lankan Government about the whole issue of protest. In this country, people have a right to protest. That is what is going on outside, and in my view and that of many people, the policing of that demonstration, by facilitating protest but as far as possible allowing the public and Parliament to go about their business, is a testament to the police. It is sometimes difficult for the police, because people may say that something ought to be done about Tamils who are sitting in the road, for example, but the only way to move them, if they will not move, is by force. The way in which the police have tried to persuade people to conform is the right way forward.

Gerald Howarth: Does the Minister not accept that what is going on in Parliament square is an absolute disgrace? It is an abuse of the right to protest. For seven weeks, the square has effectively been under semi-permanent occupation by the Tamils, and people going about their business in London have been disrupted. Why will the Minister not answer me when I ask how many police days have been devoted to the demonstration and how much it has cost? The Minister has told me that the Home Office does not keep those figures and that they are a matter for the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. Who is in charge of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner? The people of London should be told how much the demonstration is costing.

Vernon Coaker: The fact is that the number of officers and the amount of resources deployed are an operational matter for the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. The only point that I make to the hon. Gentleman is that, far from being an affront to democracy, what is going on out there is a victory for democracy.
	Having said that, I should also say that of course there are issues about how any demonstration is policed. However, I pose this question to the hon. Gentleman: what would be the effect were the police to conduct a clearance operation, bring the tents down and forcibly remove people, including women and children? Then we would see a protest from the other side of the argument. We have to look at the issue in a proportionate, sensible and measured way. We have to try to facilitate protest while trying, as far as we can, to ensure that people can go about their lawful business.

David Howarth: I agree completely with what the Minister just said. However, it raises the point of what counts as the "community" for the purposes of the Association of Chief Police Officers guidance on keeping the peace, for example. That says that the impact on the community is the first consideration in these circumstances. Does the Minister think that when protests are being policed, the "community" must include the interests of peaceful protesters themselves and that the matter is not exclusively about keeping the traffic running?

Vernon Coaker: I absolutely agree, and I think that anybody would. Part of a protest is the individual demonstrator's being able to demonstrate and to say and do what they want, within reason. Alongside that, the police, while facilitating the protest, have a responsibility to try to ensure, as far as possible, that traffic keeps moving and that people who are not interested in the demonstration can go about their business. The only point that I was making was that the police are doing a very good job with what is happening in Parliament square at present. To go back to the original question about the use of water cannon and other such equipment, it is encouraging to see our police policing such a demonstration in normal uniform, by and large.

Michael Savage

Michael Fabricant: For what reasons she decided to prevent Michael Savage from entering the UK; and if she will make a statement.

Jacqui Smith: Michael Savage was excluded for engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and by fostering hatred that might lead to inter-community violence. The exclusion is in line with the strengthened policy on exclusions that I announced to the House on 28 October last year. In his radio broadcasts, Mr. Savage has spoken about killing 100 million Muslims, and he has spoken in violent terms about homosexuals. Coming to the UK is a privilege. I refuse to extend that privilege to individuals who abuse our standards and values to undermine our way of life.

Michael Fabricant: Notwithstanding the Home Secretary's answer, she will be aware that the things of which she accuses Mike Savage are also illegal in the United States of America, and he has not faced prosecution there. Does she realise how ludicrous her ban is and the disrepute into which she has put this country in the eyes of many right-seeing—and, indeed, left-seeing—people in the United States? Does she also plan to ban Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh and other middle-aged, white, ordinary American radio presenters?

Jacqui Smith: I subscribe to the view, as expressed by another Member of this House, that
	"It's clear for reasons of our security that we must expel or refuse entry to those who preach hate, pit one faith against another and divide our society."
	Those were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, and I think he was right. Frankly, if the hon. Gentleman believes that it is appropriate for somebody to use words about Muslims such as,
	"I said so kill 100 million of them, then there would be 900 million of them. I mean would you rather us die than them?",
	then he has a very different set of values than I have, and I want to ensure that those are implemented in the decisions that we make about who we do and do not allow into this country.

John Gummer: Many of us would agree with the thrust of what the Home Secretary has said. On the other hand, had that person come to Britain, he would find the great politeness of the people from her Department who welcome people to this country, but quite the rudest notices in the world. She—or someone—has removed "please" and "thank you" from every notice that her Department puts forward to visitors and returning people. Could she make Britain's welcome to those whom we want a good deal more polite than it is now?

Jacqui Smith: We have tried to improve the notices at our borders. It is important that when people enter the UK it is clear to them that it is the UK border and that we have certain conditions in place. My hon. Friend the Minister for Borders and Immigration is taking up points about the welcome to people coming to this country. The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about our wanting to welcome those who come here in good faith—those who will make a contribution to this country, and who come here for holidays—and to differentiate between them and people such as Mr. Savage who clearly have no place in this country and would have no welcome here.

Crispin Blunt: The Home Office's production of a "name and shame" list was a self-evident gimmick and demeaning to Government, and it has led to a completely avoidable legal action that is producing splendid publicity for Michael Savage. Does the Home Secretary think, on reflection, that that was a mistake and the wrong way for the Government to behave?

Jacqui Smith: No, I do not, because I agree with the hon. Gentleman's party leader that we need to be clear about who we will and will not accept into this country. We need to be clear about the values that we have. Where someone preaches hate and foments hatred in the way that has happened in this case, where they provoke others to serious violence, and where they use phrases such as, in relation to somebody who said on his radio programme that he was gay,
	"You should only get AIDS and die, you pig!",
	then it is right that we express our view about that. We recognise that coming to this country is a privilege, and we will express our values in terms of those we exclude.

David Winnick: If Savage had said what he said about Muslims about Christians or Jews, what would be the reaction?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Had an Islamic preacher said the equivalent about killing 100 million Jews, there would rightly have been outrage. There would have been—as there have been from Conservative Members—calls for that individual to be excluded. In developing our policy, we have taken an even-handed approach in saying that if people foment hate—if their aim is to drive division between different faiths and potentially to cause inter-community violence in this country—then they are not welcome in this country.

Julian Brazier: If it is an even-handed approach, could the Home Secretary explain why we have welcomed back to this country from Guantanamo Bay two UK residents, but not citizens, who are not only suspected terrorists in Afghanistan but wanted on murder charges in Spain?

Jacqui Smith: We have, for some period of time, taken a position of wanting to see Guantanamo Bay closed. In order to help to facilitate that, we have accepted back, and in fact sought the return to this country, of those who are nationals and have previously been resident in the UK. I think that President Obama's decision to close Guantanamo Bay is the right one, not solely because of the individuals there but because of the ability that that gives us internationally to take forward the sort of values that we hold, and the US holds, in fighting and tackling terrorism.

Illegal Immigrants

Andrew Selous: What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of measures to remove illegal immigrants from the UK.

Phil Woolas: The immigration system is undergoing the biggest shake-up in a generation. We have strengthened our borders, started the roll-out of local immigration teams, introduced civil penalties for rogue employers who knowingly hire illegal workers, and introduced tier 4 of the points-based system for students. We are committed to removing those with no right to be here, targeting the most harmful first. Last year, more than 66,000 people were removed from the UK or left voluntarily, including a record number of foreign criminals.

Andrew Selous: Many of my constituents want to know the reason for the huge delays in the Home Office, which lead to the failure to remove illegal immigrants, who then acquire the right to stay in this country. The figures show that the number of removals fell in the last quarter of 2008 and was lower than in 2007. Why was that?

Phil Woolas: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The trend of our removals is significantly up. Of course, we have difficulties with some countries that refuse to issue documents, and that must be taken into account. However, there is steady improvement, as the report that the chief executive of the UK Border Agency gives regularly to the Home Affairs Committee—I see its Chairman in his place— shows.

Gwyn Prosser: We would have far fewer illegal immigrants to remove if we were even more effective in reducing the flow of illegals from northern France to Dover. What progress has the Minister made in setting up a secure holding centre in Calais? What benefits will flow from that?

Phil Woolas: I thank my hon. Friend for the question. Given his constituency, he knows more than most, if not all, about the issue. Let me reassure the House that the people trying to get into our country from Calais are not queuing up; they are locked out. Our bilateral conversations with the French have produced good progress. We will have a high-level bilateral meeting next month, when we hope to finalise the next stage of our reform to put in place what is already one of the most effective border controls in the world.

John Mason: Can the Minister tell us why a four-year-old boy with medical problems has been imprisoned in Dungavel in Lanarkshire?

Phil Woolas: It would not be right to comment on individual cases. If the hon. Gentleman wants to take up the matter with me, I will respond in due course. On the general policy of detaining children, it is, of course, a last resort, and we have programmes to consider alternatives. However, regrettably, on some occasions, people who have not co-operated with the decisions of the independent tribunals and courts and would, in their view, otherwise abscond, face detention.

Andrew MacKinlay: I think that this is the third time that I have asked this question of the Home Secretary and the Minister, but I am totally bewildered. Why can the Minister not get on top of cases of mums or dads who are married to or partners of British citizens—their kids, who are British children, run around my surgery—but cannot resolve their status? They might, yonks ago, have arrived here as illegal immigrants, but the problem is a no-brainer: they are not going back anywhere, so why cannot we get their papers regularised so that they can work and enjoy life? The problem is not small, but endemic. I have it every week in my constituency, and I do not want to wait till 2010 and 2011 to resolve it. When can those cases be resolved? Common sense should prevail.

Phil Woolas: I can give my hon. Friend the reassurance. I refer him to the comprehensive information that we have provided to the Select Committee. The legacy cases for failed asylum and immigration problems are being got through at a pace. Under policy and law, we rightly have to look at each case on its merits. We are doing that and we are on track to complete that in the timetable that the Home Secretary outlined. If I may say so, we are doing a good job of it.

Nicholas Soames: Does the Minister of State agree that the effective removal of illegal immigrants is an important underpinning for public confidence? Does he also agree that it is just as important that the Government take the steps that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and I have raised with them to break the link between people coming here to work and those who settle?

Phil Woolas: The answers to the hon. Gentleman's questions are yes and yes. It is important that temporary settlement rights do not automatically become permanent settlement rights and that that is made clear. One of the advantages of the points-based system is exactly that. It is backed up by the border control of counting in and counting out, which I know my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and he have supported. We have today introduced two new countries to the effective visa regime, and it is also important that those visas are counted in and counted out. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for that policy.

Gisela Stuart: Has the Minister given any more thought to the idea that if someone fails in their application for asylum, appeals and fails again, and is then told that they have no right to be here and no further right of appeal, that decision ought to be picked up in person, so that that person is not informed by letter and allowed simply to disappear into the community?

Phil Woolas: There is much merit in that suggestion. When a failed asylum seeker's appeal rights are exhausted, the procedures that we follow are critically important. However, we are regularly subject to legal challenge on that, which mostly results in the UKBA winning the argument and winning the case. There is a constant campaign, if I may use that word, to ensure that the law is enforced, but I nevertheless thank my hon. Friend for her suggestion.

Paul Rowen: The Minister talked in his initial remarks about the steps that he had taken to strengthen the UK borders. Could he explain to the House how reducing the number of diplomatic posts that process immigration and visa applications is improving and strengthening our borders?

Phil Woolas: I thank the hon. Gentleman; I know that the issue is important for his constituency. There is a misunderstanding abroad on that point. Partly as a result of security measures in some countries, but partly also as a result of change in management and improvements in efficiency, we now operate on a hub-and-spoke basis. It is important to recognise that our contracted agents are the first contact with the applicant, for both the application and the pick-up. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the number of positions that are designated to individual posts, rather than the number that are geographically located at such places, he will find that there has been an improvement through the hub-and-spoke approach.

Chris Grayling: The Minister will remember my raising the case of the 5,000 illegal immigrants given clearance to work in the security industry by the Security Industry Authority 18 months ago. Can he give the House a categorical assurance that none of those workers is still working in the security industry?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman knows that someone in my position can never give an absolute categorical assurance at a specific point in time, and no Minister could. I agree with him, however, that it is important for the confidence of the system that that is seen to be done. When we are able to report on the issue, he will see the effectiveness of the UKBA under its new structure and management.

Chris Grayling: I think that most people in this House and outside it would expect Ministers to have something of a handle on the issue 18 months later and to be able to give a clear answer. Let me then ask him two questions. We established two months ago that only 35 of those people had been deported. How many more have been deported since and where are the rest?

Phil Woolas: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has a campaign on the issue, but a campaign should be based on the facts. He well knows that not all those people are liable for deportation, so his question is trying to move the goalposts. I appreciate that that is good propaganda; it is just not good policy.

Identity Cards

John Leech: What assessment she has made of the likely uptake of voluntary identity cards in the pilot scheme in Manchester.

Jacqui Smith: Identity cards will start to be available to British citizens resident in Manchester from the autumn, at a fee of £30, and will, I am sure, become popular with members of the public who want a convenient and secure means of proving their identity.

John Leech: I thank the Secretary of State for saying that with a straight face. Could she tell the House how low the take-up needs to be before the Government realise that they have very little public support and that the ID cards scheme is a complete waste of money?

Jacqui Smith: The most recent research on the national identity service as a whole has shown, as research has consistently shown, that about 60 per cent. of the British public support the identity card scheme and less than 25 per cent. disagree with it. People will have the opportunity—and have already begun to take that opportunity—to register their interest and, in Manchester, to get the security and convenience that comes from being able to prove their identity far more securely than they can now.

David Taylor: The cost of identity cards has surged by a further quarter of a billion pounds to the present figure of £5.3 billion, which excludes every Government Department apart from the Home Office, and also excludes businesses, citizens and many sectors of society. Does the Home Secretary believe that there is a risk that the Manchester citizens who signed up for the card—no doubt in the fiction section of the central library, while having a continental breakfast—have signed away their privacy for life and given a blank cheque to this and, perhaps, future Governments?

Jacqui Smith: I know that my hon. Friend would not want the facts to get in the way of an amusing question. He is wrong: the costs have not increased in the way in which he suggests. Last year, we were able to demonstrate a reduction of £1 billion in the cost of the instigation of the national identity service over the next 10 years. The cost for the people of Manchester to take up this opportunity on a purely voluntary basis will be £30, and we will see how many of them want to take up the opportunity.

Patrick Cormack: Can the Home Secretary not acknowledge that, whatever the precise figure, it is an enormous one, and that the scheme is never going to happen because no sane Government will pursue it? So why does she not chuck it?

Jacqui Smith: There are already people in this country who have identity cards in their hands and in their wallets. We have already issued 30,000 identity cards to foreign nationals, and by November this year that figure will be 75,000. The hon. Gentleman might want to wish the scheme away, but it exists in this country now. I believe, given the level of support that we have consistently maintained for identity cards, that a sane Government will recognise the benefits to individuals of being able to find a more secure, more convenient way of proving their identity, which many of us have to do often in our lives. When we put that alongside the security that comes from being able to tie our identity to ourselves in a modern world, we can recognise the benefits. Also, as I pointed out to the House either at the previous Home Office questions or the one before, the idea that there are large sums of money to be saved by doing away with the scheme is completely fallacious. Anyone who suggests that will have a black hole not only in their plans for security but in their financial plans.

Damian Green: With every month that passes, it becomes clearer that the ID card scheme will never be introduced, yet, as the Home Secretary has just said, at last month's Home Office questions she was determined to tell us about the new contracts that she had signed to create the system. There are billions of pounds of taxpayers' money at stake, so will she pledge today to publish the details of those contracts and the break clauses in them, to remove any suspicion that she is trying to tie the hands of her successors and land the British taxpayer with a huge and unnecessary bill for a discredited policy?

Jacqui Smith: I made clear and announced to the House the costs of breaking those contracts. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not proposing that I put commercially confidential information into the public domain—leak it, perhaps? We have been completely clear that, of the total cost of implementing ID cards, approximately 70 per cent. would need to be spent in any event, just to implement secure biometric passports. I presume that Opposition Members are not turning their backs on what every other Schengen country is going to do: put fingerprints into secure biometric passports. The operational costs of issuing ID cards in addition to that will be recovered largely from fees, so, as I said earlier, the Opposition's suggestion that there is a large amount of money to be saved by scrapping the ID card scheme suggests that there is a black hole not only in their plans but in their finances.

Crime (Public Transport)

Mary Creagh: What steps she is taking to reduce levels of crime at bus and railway stations.

Alan Campbell: The Government fund schemes such as the secure stations scheme to reduce crime at transport hubs, with extra CCTV cameras, better lighting, and customer help and information points.

Mary Creagh: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Last October, a 21-year-old woman was assaulted, robbed and raped at Kirkgate train station by a Romanian national, Ali Majlat, who has been given an indeterminate sentence and will serve a minimum of five years. What reassurance can my hon. Friend give my constituents that this evil man will be deported as soon as he leaves prison, with no leave to return? Will my hon. Friend also please knock some heads together at Northern Rail and Network Rail, to ensure that we get a live CCTV monitoring system so that the British Transport police can monitor what is going on at Kirkgate station?

Alan Campbell: This was a grave and hideous crime, and my sympathies go to the victim. As my hon. Friend says, the perpetrator is in prison—and I think most people would expect him to serve his sentence in full and then be considered for deportation, which is exactly what is happening. On my hon. Friend's other points, I would be happy to meet her to see what else can be done.

Nicholas Winterton: Although the Government gave a very reassuring answer to the original question, does the Minister agree that many railways stations and even bus stations are unmanned at night and that in many cases those stations are very dark—almost like a morgue—and that there is a huge backlog of expenditure required to install the CCTV cameras and lighting that would make those stations much safer, particularly for the young and the elderly who are frightened to use public transport at night?

Alan Campbell: The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter on behalf of his constituents. Policing at stations and, indeed, station security is, of course, the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Transport, but I would be quite happy to raise the hon. Gentleman's point with my colleagues.

Neil Gerrard: The safer transport team based at Walthamstow Central bus and tube station has had a really good effect on bringing down crime levels in the area, but one issue that does not help to persuade people that this is actually happening is the diversion created in people's minds by the use of section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2006 to stop and search people who have been taking photographs in and around the bus station. Will the Minister look at how that law is operating? We recently had a ludicrous incident when an Austrian tourist who was taking photographs of buses was stopped and searched. That does not help.

Alan Campbell: We are looking at that. My hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing is in discussions on exactly that issue.

David Ruffley: We all know that if police officers spend more time on the beat, crime will be cut. Four years ago, the Home Office told us that police officers spent only 19 per cent. of their time on the beat. Can the Minister tell us today what the latest figure is?

Alan Campbell: What we need to be measuring is the length of time that police officers spend on front-line duties, not simply "on the beat". The hon. Gentleman is aware that if police are literally on the beat, they are obviously not involved in front-line policing. As soon as officers undertake some policing, it means they are carrying out front-line duties, which is subject to a different measurement altogether. The figures have been rising in that respect. What we need to do is not just have police officers with more time for front-line police services, but guarantee the number of those officers. Given the funding commitments—or lack of them—from the Conservative party, I am not sure whether police officers will be there to spend time on whatever duties.

Trafficking (Children)

Stephen Crabb: What her most recent estimate is of the level of trafficking of children into the UK.

Alan Campbell: The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre's "Strategic Threat Assessment" published last month, is the most recent study into child trafficking. It found that 325 children were identified as potential victims of trafficking or exploitation from data supplied covering the period 1 March 2007 to 29 February 2008.

Stephen Crabb: I am grateful for that reply, but the Minister will have seen the report from the Home Affairs Committee last week, which painted a grim picture of a growing modern slave industry here within the UK, where abused children are some of the principal victims. What practical steps is he, along with other ministerial colleagues, taking to ensure that all relevant agencies coming into contact with trafficked children are aware of the issues, to end the culture of disbelief that unquestionably still exists among some professionals, and, most of all, to put a stop to our care homes effectively becoming holding pens for trafficked children?

Alan Campbell: We are concerned about children who are suspected of being trafficked, particularly if they go missing from care. The national referral mechanism is an important part of identifying those who may be victims of child trafficking. The young runaways plan brings together, across government, partners that are important in that process. The hon. Gentleman mentions local authorities; there will be increased guidance to them. They, at the end of the day, are responsible for children in such situations.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) is absolutely right to raise the issue of care homes. Last week,  The Guardian reported that 77 trafficked Chinese children went missing from a home in Hillingdon, and hundreds more have gone missing in the past 10 years. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for coming to the Select Committee seminar last week, but will the Minister tell the House when she will be in a position to report back to the Prime Minister, who has asked her for an urgent report on the situation in care homes? Does the Minister not agree that the way to stop children being trafficked is to bring together the origin, destination and transition countries and put our faith in organisations such as Europol, which exist to try to stop this horrible practice continuing?

Alan Campbell: My right hon. Friend is exactly right, and I pay tribute to the work of his Committee and to the important opportunity offered by last week's seminar, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary attended. There was an important sharing of views on these matters. He asks when the Home Secretary, and indeed the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, will report back to the Prime Minister. I believe that that will happen shortly—within the next few weeks.

Anthony Steen: Are the Government aware that they may be on the wrong point, as most children are trafficked from China and Vietnam? That being the case, should not the asylum-seeking provision be lifted for those children, because what we need for all Chinese and Vietnamese children is special screening by the border and immigration services—otherwise, children will always go missing from care homes?

Alan Campbell: May I first place on record our appreciation of the hon. Gentleman's efforts? Few in the House have done more to achieve progress on this matter and I pay tribute to him. That screening, I am advised, is in place, but it is important that we have the closest scrutiny, particularly of the groups that he refers to. That is why it is important that we work in those countries to stop the flow of those people. We must also work hard here: it is not always easy to identify the age of a trafficked child, so we must have the mechanisms in place to proceed to identify exactly who the individuals are.

Ann Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, were we to reintroduce the recording of embarkation details—I think we are going to do it—that would help enormously in stopping the trafficking of children, because we would know whether a person had travelled out alone and returned accompanied by five or six children?

Alan Campbell: Yes, we are doing that, and it is an important step forward, as are the operations that we run at key airports, which are having an effect on the number of children whom we suspect are being brought into the country and trafficked.

Community Policing

Lindsay Hoyle: What recent assessment she has made of the role of police community support officers in supporting community beat managers.

Vernon Coaker: In performing that role as part of neighbourhood policing teams, PCSOs offer valuable support to their community beat managers. The PCSO review, published in 2008, and the policing Green Paper were both broadly supportive of the PCSO role. In addition, the 2006 evaluation of PCSOs found that they had a key role to play in neighbourhood policing, and their provision of reassurance and visibility was welcomed by local communities.

Lindsay Hoyle: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that PCSOs have a role to play—as he says, an important role—in backing up policing? Will he ensure that we do not see PCSOs replacing real bobbies as a way of saving money?

Vernon Coaker: We of course understand the fact that there is a real difference between PCSOs and full-time warranted police officers, and we want to maintain that distinction, but my hon. Friend is also right to point out that PCSOs—integrated particularly in neighbourhood policing teams, working side by side with warranted police officers, specials and, indeed, neighbourhood wardens—make a huge contribution to keeping communities safe and reassuring people out and about in different communities.

DNA Database

Andrew Stunell: What factors her Department took into account in deciding on the options of retaining DNA samples for six and 12 years in its consultation on the national DNA database.

Vernon Coaker: We will be retaining samples for a maximum of six months, after which time they will be destroyed whether the person is convicted or not. On DNA profiles, the public consultation paper "Keeping the Right People on the DNA database", published on 7 May 2009, sets out our proposals and the thinking behind them. Our approach is supported by evidence on the propensity to offend, which indicates that there is a span of four to 15 years within which retention periods can be justified.
	Our key consideration is implementing the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of S and Marper in a way that balances the need to protect the public with the need to safeguard the rights of the individual.

Andrew Stunell: Will the Minister not act to remove immediately from the DNA database those who have been falsely accused? I draw to his attention the case of my 50-year-old constituent who challenged a group of unruly youths and faced false accusations. His DNA is now stuck on that database for ever. Can the Minister not assure the House that those falsely accused will be taken off the DNA database and the Court's ruling complied with immediately?

Vernon Coaker: I do not know the particular case that the hon. Gentleman refers to, but of course people can appeal to a chief constable to be taken off the DNA database, and indeed new guidance will be prepared to try to ensure that people in certain situations, perhaps such as the situation that he refers to, will be able to get their DNA taken off the database.

Topical Questions

Richard Ottaway: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Jacqui Smith: The Government continue to make progress against the threat that drugs pose to communities and families. Since publishing the drug strategy in February last year, we have made record numbers of drug seizures in England and Wales, we have seized more of the cash and assets of criminals and we have helped more people than ever before to access drug treatment. We have seen overall drug use fall to its lowest level since British crime survey measurements started, and we have seen drug-related crime fall, but we will continue to build on that progress and respond to emerging threats. That is why I will be launching a public consultation on the control of GBL later this month. As tragically shown by the recent death of Hester Stewart, controls are necessary to prevent the use of such precursor chemicals, and we will work to determine the best controls of that substance.

Richard Ottaway: The Home Secretary goes on about her drugs policy at length, but is she aware of the damning indictment of it by the Centre for Policy Studies? It said:
	"Labour's War on Drugs has not, despite the rhetoric to the contrary, been fought. It has been a Phoney War—and an expensive failure."
	When will the Government adopt the Conservative party's proposals, and stop managing addiction and instead focus on its root causes?

Jacqui Smith: There are many inaccuracies in the report that the hon. Gentleman refers to. Overall, drug use is at its lowest level since measurements through the BCS began. As I said, we have seized more cash and assets in the past year than ever before. We made a record 216,792 drug seizures in England and Wales in the past year, and the Serious Organised Crime Agency seized more than 90 tonnes of class A drugs. We have seen the wholesale price of cocaine rise as a result of the impact of its work. We have got more support and treatment to young people than ever before and helped more people to access drug treatment, with more than 200,000 people now able to do so. We have also introduced well regarded campaigns to tackle drug use, and we are considering how to reform drugs education in our schools. That is a comprehensive list of progress.

Martin Salter: One organisation that has been actively campaigning against settlement rights for the brave Gurkha soldiers is the odious British National party, which is circulating a leaflet defacing the image of the recently fallen Corporal Kumar Pun, a man who gave his life for this country. Does the Minister agree that it is high time that the Gurkha settlement issue was resolved in favour of the historic debt of honour that this country owes Corporal Pun and his comrades?

Phil Woolas: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and repeat the assurance that we gave the House on 29 April that we are working on new proposals. I am grateful to the Home Affairs Committee, of which my hon. Friend is a member, for its facilitation of that discussion.
	On the British National party, all of us in the House would recognise that the increased scrutiny of that party is now exposing the true nature of its policies. I imagine that we would all wish to condemn wholeheartedly its policy of instructing its members not to describe people as being "black British" or "British Asian", and its comments regarding the footballers Ferdinand, Walcott and James as not being English,

Norman Baker: Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) about DNA samples, may I ask whether the Minister really thinks it appropriate to keep samples for six or 12 years, given that the European Court of Human Rights has lauded the Scottish model in which no samples from innocent people are kept except samples from those who have been acquitted of a sexual or violent offence, which are kept for three years? Why do we not adopt that model?

Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman's question gives me another opportunity to put on record the Government's categorical statement that we will not retain samples, which are genetic material, for longer than six months. As for profiles, to which I think he is referring, we know that keeping the profiles of those who have been arrested will enable us to solve crimes in the future. That is a proportionate approach.
	If the hon. Gentleman reads what was actually said in the European Court judgment, he will find that the objection was to the indiscriminate, blanket nature of our policy, and that keeping DNA from those who had been arrested was not considered necessarily to be wrong.

Christine Russell: Most people find the presence of CCTV in their neighbourhoods reassuring, and most police officers find them very helpful in assisting the detection of crime and the reduction of antisocial behaviour. However, there is also a strong view out there that they can result in a real invasion of an individual's personal liberty. Has the Department commissioned, or will it consider commissioning, a fully independent survey of the effectiveness of CCTV cameras?

Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend has raised an important point about the balance between the rights of the individual and the protection of the community. The Home Office is examining the way in which we manage CCTV systems throughout the country, and also the possibility of establishing a national CCTV board.
	According to a recent report from the Campbell Collaboration crime and justice group, CCTV has
	"a modest but significant desirable impact on crime".
	The report says that it is most effective in reducing crime in car parks and targeting vehicle crime, and that it is more effective in reducing crime in the United Kingdom than in other countries. I think that that is an endorsement of CCTV, but we must of course consider the impact on the privacy of the individual as well.

John Leech: In south Manchester we face the prospect of losing PC Steve Hobson as our crime reduction adviser. Steve has done more than any other police officer in Manchester to help combat crime. Will the Minister join me in supporting the Save Our Steve campaign, which aims to persuade Greater Manchester police to keep Steve on after his 30 years of service?

Jacqui Smith: It is officers such as PC Steve Hobson who—particularly through neighbourhood policing teams—are helping communities all over the country to feel more confident and helping to make crime fall, and it is the actions of this Government that have ensured that there are 14,000 more police constables like Steve Hobson across the country now. Our difficulty is that Conservative Members have steadfastly refused to commit themselves to safeguarding those numbers.

Nia Griffith: We all understand that we need the strictest possible border controls to deal with immigration, but can my hon. Friend the Minister for Borders and Immigration offer any reassurance to a constituent of mine who holds dual nationality that if she leaves this country using her New Zealand passport she will not encounter any difficulties, or any threat of deportation, when trying to return here using her British passport?

Phil Woolas: I can do my best to give that reassurance. Certainly no aspect of policy should produce a problem. However, I am sure that if there is a problem, my hon. Friend, as a hard-working Member of Parliament, will be on the phone to me immediately. Her question also gives me an opportunity to reassure her about the merits of the border control policy, including the electronic borders that now count people in and out of our country, and I ask all Members to support us in that endeavour.

Sandra Gidley: Owners of weapons deactived prior to 1995 hold certificates to say that they are, in fact, non-weapons, and only a handful of crimes have been committed in reactivating the "deacs"—the deactivated weapons. Would not Government time be better spent in tackling illegal gun sales than in trying to penalise law-abiding members of the community further?

Jacqui Smith: I believe that we need to do both. That is why we have taken action, not least internationally through the Serious Organised Crime Agency and with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, to tackle the import of guns, and why we are working with the National Ballistics Intelligence Service—NABIS—and its database in order to be able to track guns and where they come from more clearly. It is also why we will take action against deactivated firearms and why we have had a 16 per cent. fall in gun crime over the last year.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Why is the Home Office still proposing to retain the DNA profiles of innocent people for six years? Is the Secretary of State aware of correspondence that I and many others have sent to the Department about entirely innocent people who have been not only not convicted, but not even charged with any offence, and who believe that the march of the state and the surveillance society must be stopped, and that this is a very good place to start?

Vernon Coaker: As I said to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), the European Court judgment actually said that the indiscriminate blanket nature of the retention of DNA was the issue and that that meant we were in breach of our human rights obligations. It did not say that we should not keep any DNA on arrest. As a result of the consultation we brought forward last week the Government have given a proportionate response to the judgment of the courts as we try to balance retaining DNA with our ability to solve crime. We have all seen that the retention on the DNA database of the DNA of those arrested but not convicted has led to a large number of crimes being solved that otherwise would have remained unsolved, including rapes and murders. That is something the right hon. Gentleman must also consider.

Bob Russell: Further to the earlier question from the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) about police community support officers, what is the Government's policy on Neighbourhood Watch? Does it have a role to play in the fight against crime, and if so, what support are the Government giving it?

Jacqui Smith: Neighbourhood Watch has a fundamental role to play alongside the neighbourhood policing teams that are now in every community in this country. That is why we are investing an extra £1 million to help Neighbourhood Watch maintain that important role, alongside that performed by increased numbers of police officers and of PCSOs.

Mark Pritchard: The Secretary of State will know that the vast majority of police officers and PCSOs in the West Mercia police area, and also those covering Shropshire, are hard-working and dedicated. Will she therefore give a commitment to the House today that there will be no cuts in front-line officers in the next financial year?

Jacqui Smith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the police officers in West Mercia do a very good job, which is why crime has come down in his area and in mine. I have given a commitment to maintain our increased funding for the police grant, which will enable us at least to maintain police numbers. Unfortunately, the shadow Home Secretary has refused to give me a commitment that his spending plans, which would have reduced spending to the equivalent of about 3,500 police officers this year, would not be instituted. I can give a commitment to maintain police funding; the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues cannot.

Peter Bone: The Home Secretary refers to police numbers, but it is no good having policemen if they are not out on the beat. Why is it that under her Government the amount of time the police spend on the beat is falling? In my county it is down to 10 per cent.

Jacqui Smith: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but that is just wrong. Not only do we have—

Peter Bone: It is not wrong!

Jacqui Smith: Ooh!
	Not only do we have more police officers and a funding commitment that the hon. Gentleman's party has signally failed to match, but, through cutting bureaucracy and providing handheld computers, we have more police officers and more PCSOs with more time to spend on their duties, which is why we continue to see crime in this country falling.

Bob Spink: May I thank the Government for their action over the past 10 years on Gurkhas' resettlement rights, while encouraging them to ensure that their new proposals are much more generous and give the necessary concessions? Will those proposals be implemented in time for us to celebrate them during the armed forces celebration day on 27 June?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman, like the rest of the House, will have to be patient. As I said on 29 April and as has been said in evidence to the Select Committee, we are putting in place new proposals to move towards the point that was made by the House in that debate, and I am optimistic.

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: I would like to make a statement on Members' allowances. We all know that it is the tradition of this House that the Speaker speaks to the whole House, but in doing so please allow me to say to the men and women of the United Kingdom that we have let you down very badly indeed. We must all accept blame and, to the extent that I have contributed to the situation, I am profoundly sorry. Now, each and every Member, including myself, must work hard to regain your trust.
	As a matter of urgency, and within 48 hours, I am calling the Prime Minister and party leaders, including those of the minority parties, to meet me and the other members of the House of Commons Commission. Also present will be the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig).
	Leaders of all parties have made announcements on what should be done. Some of their proposals are very similar to those put to the House on 3 July last year by the Members Estimate Committee—which I chair—copies of which are lodged in the Vote Office. I want discussion to centre on the additional costs allowance and all those matters that have caused the greatest controversy and most anger with the public, and I include in that the early publication of the additional costs allowance, office costs and travel material.
	While we await the work of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, we must search for agreement, so that the Leader of the House can bring forward resolutions to give an opportunity for the House to deal with the immediate situation. In the meantime, I do urge all hon. Members not to submit claims for approval. Last week, I had a most productive meeting with Sir Christopher Kelly, who explained to me his hopes to bring forward reasoned proposals in the autumn. While we await the outcome of his work, it is imperative that we continue to improve our accounts and practice in the interim, and get in place measures that work and are seen to be working. I say again that we all bear a heavy responsibility for the terrible damage to the reputation of this House. We must do everything we possibly can to regain the trust and confidence of the people.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Prentice.

Gordon Prentice: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A motion of no confidence in you, Sir, will appear on the Order Paper tomorrow. Am I right in thinking that it will be debated tomorrow and voted upon?

Mr. Speaker: This is not a point of order—

Gordon Prentice: Oh yes it is—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please allow me to answer. These are matters for debate on an appropriate motion.

Douglas Carswell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will be aware, Members on both sides of the House have now tabled a substantive motion calling for a vote of no confidence in you. When will Members be allowed to choose a new Speaker with the moral authority to clean up Westminster and the legitimacy to lift this House out of the mire?

Mr. Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken— [ Interruption. ] I will answer. I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken advice, but it is not a substantive motion. It is an early-day motion— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman is telling me that it is not. Please give me credit for having some experience in the Chair. It is not a substantive motion; it is an early-day motion. The hon. Gentleman knows—

Richard Bacon: It is a substantive motion. The Deputy Leader of the House just told me that it is a substantive motion.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me ask the Clerk; if I am wrong I will say so. It is a motion on the remaining orders, and can only be proceeded with if it becomes a substantive motion.

David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is, as you say, great public anger outside that undoubtedly has harmed the reputation of this House. We all bear responsibility; I take my share of the responsibility, like any other hon. Member. I am not associated with the motion, Sir, but will you bear in mind that it would be very useful for the reputation of this House—I say this with reluctance, but I say it all the same—if you gave some indication of your own intention to retire? Your early retirement would help the reputation of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has served under more Speakers than I have and he knows that that is not a subject for today.

David Winnick: It should be answered by you, Sir—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

David Heath: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have a great deal of personal sympathy for the impossible situation in which you find yourself. I have to say that the statement you have made would have been extremely welcome had it been made a few weeks or months ago, but I have very grave doubts, given the appalling situation in which we find ourselves—this midden of the House's own making—that any action taken by Members of this House will restore the trust that we need. Is it not therefore necessary, and can you assist us in this, Mr. Speaker, for this House to resolve to accept unequivocally the results of Sir Christopher Kelly's decisions—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the hon. Gentleman. I cannot give an assurance as to whether the proposals of any organisation will be accepted by this House. This House must make that acceptance.

David Heath: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Let me finish. I think that I must clarify a certain situation. I said it in the statement—Sir Christopher Kelly will not report until the autumn and therefore steps have to be taken within this House.

David Heath: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What I was asking was that the House be given an opportunity to resolve to accept the recommendations of that independent committee, to resolve to remove the remaining barriers to transparency so that everything can be revealed as soon as possible, and to accept that those right hon. and hon. Members who put us into this position by resisting reform cannot possibly be the right people to lead us out of the mire.

Mr. Speaker: I say to the hon. Gentleman that until resolutions are put forward—I hope that they come forward in the meeting that I have proposed—for which the Leader of the House will have responsibility, and only then, will the House be able to proceed. He mentioned transparency, and, yes, as I have stated, I have heard leaders of the parties and others talk about many issues, some of which were brought up on 3 July by the Committee that I chair. What I can say about that point is that anything about transparency can be on the agenda at the meeting that will take place within 48 hours and can hopefully be translated into a resolution that this House can consider.

Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The times that we are living in are unprecedented, as far as Parliament is concerned. What is at stake is the institution of Parliament and its integrity. May I just say that I very much hope that you will take account of the fact that profound concern is voiced in the motion that is to go down tomorrow? May I ask you to bear in mind that the condition of the House today is rather like the condition of the country at the time of the Norway debate, and could you reflect on that?

Mike Hancock: Further to that a point of order, Mr. Speaker.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mike Hancock: At the meeting that you, Mr. Speaker, will convene within 48 hours, will you ask Sir Christopher Kelly what resources he would need to bring his report forward from the autumn, because that date seems wholly unacceptable? If it is a question of resources, they should be made available to enable him to do the work, certainly so speedily that it is done one month from now. I urge you to discuss that with the party leaders and the House of Commons Commission.

Mr. Speaker: I take on board what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

Lindsay Hoyle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be possible for Kelly to bring forward a very early interim report, with something that we could adopt, to make the changes more immediate?

Mr. Speaker: I have heard what the hon. Gentleman had to say.

Richard Shepherd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The reputation and standing of the House, in the views of those who send us here, are at the lowest point that I can ever remember. This is a constitutional crisis, and we now have to hear a statement about the future. Many out there will not believe that we are serious about the changes that are necessary as long as you are in the Chair. That is the terrible situation that we are in. I feel the greatest sadness that I have even had to raise this point. There is a motion on the Order Paper, and it should be debated, and the Government should acknowledge that it will be debated.

Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman is doing, through a point of order, is debating the matter.  [Interruption.] Order. He has a point of view, and I do not deny him that right, but he knows the rules of the House. That is not a debate that he can enter into through a point of order.

Richard Shepherd: How do we discuss things in this House if—

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman does not know that, no one will know.  [Interruption.] Order.

Stuart Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The majority in this House will fully support the statement that you made today. The majority in the House will fully accept that there has never been, in the history of our land, such an attack on the Speaker of the House of Commons. There has never been such an attack on the chairmanship and speakership of this House. Are not the steps that you are taking, with the steps that Sir Christopher Kelly is taking, the steps that the Prime Minister has asked for and the review of four years of our expenses, all designed to restore public confidence and public trust? Should not the House calm itself down, have a period of reflection, and support you, as the Speaker is entitled to be supported?

Mr. Speaker: All I say to the hon. Gentleman is that the House of Commons Commission, which this House created— [Interruption.] Order. As far as I know, the Commission was created under statute. The House of Commons Commission has a responsibility. The party leaders—all of them, including the leaders of the minority parties—have a responsibility. What I am saying is: let all the parties involved meet and discuss the matter. That has never happened. What has happened is that one party has said one thing, the Prime Minister has said another, and the Liberal party another. Other individual Members have had a point of view, too. For the first time, people will be under the one roof, talking about this matter.

David Davis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a sad day for all of us. The point that you made earlier is, I am sure, absolutely right: the motion is an early-day motion, not a substantive motion. Is it within the power of a Back Bencher to put down a substantive motion, and if so, how?

Mr. Speaker: It has to be on the Order Paper, and not under the remaining orders. That is a matter for the Government, not for the Chair. [Hon. Members: "Ah!"] Order.

Bob Spink: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I welcome, as I am sure the House must do, your statement today— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Given the difficulty we are in, I should be able to hear an hon. Member who is speaking.

Bob Spink: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The whole House must welcome your statement today, so thank you.
	Sir, in view of the Whit recess next week, will you be able to come to the House and make a further statement following your meeting with the party leaders? Following that statement, may we have a debate, so that I can make it plain that my constituents, like most people's constituents, do not want to see you made a scapegoat for the actions of these Members?

Mr. Speaker: I will make a statement as soon as I am in a position to do so regarding the report back, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will keep the House informed in every way possible.

Susan Kramer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for your guidance as to whether there is anything in your power to guide the Government to provide us with an Opposition day debate in which this matter, which most of the House wishes to debate, could be introduced as a substantive motion?

Mr. Speaker: I have no responsibility for the subject of debate. I have to make it clear that I am not continuing with what seems to be a debate on this matter. I have made a statement.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: To be helpful, I call Sammy Wilson.

Sammy Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, may I say that I welcome the opportunity not just for the main parties in the House but for the minority parties to have a discussion on the issue with you and to make recommendations? I believe, as other Members have said, that the very reputation not just of the House but of the future of good governance in the United Kingdom is at stake. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you can give us an assurance that, after those discussions, a report will quickly be given to the House as to their outcome so that the matter can be put behind us and settled?

Mr. Speaker: I will do that—I promise that I will do that.

Mark Field: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) have confessed to claiming fraudulently tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money for phantom mortgage claims.— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please— [ Interruption. ] Order. We have to be careful about what we say. There are things that I could have said from the Chair expressing anger about certain things, but I had to be careful. I must ask hon. Members to do so, too. I caution the hon. Gentleman, not for my sake, but for his sake: he should not say this. In fact, I have to stop him saying it, and I give him good advice.

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[11th Allotted Day]

Skills in the Recession

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

David Willetts: I beg to move,
	That this House regrets the Government's failure to deliver the skills training and education needed if the economy is to emerge stronger from the recession; condemns the incompetent management of further education colleges' capital projects; is concerned that the percentage of young people not in education, employment or training has risen significantly since the start of the decade; notes the concerns of training providers that funding allocations for 2009-10 will not support current apprentices to the end of their training; is disappointed that an estimated 1.4 million adult learning places have been lost since 2005; and urges the Government to set out, in consultation with the Association of Colleges, clear criteria for the prioritisation of funding for college building projects, to provide support for more Masters degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects during the downturn, to fund learners over the age of 25 in level 3 STEM skills and to help apprentices at risk of losing their places to find new employers or new training places.
	Our motion is about the economic crisis facing our country, but I sense that it is not the House's preoccupation at this very moment. However, the situation that we are in is perilous, because we face serious economic difficulties, which is the subject that we are debating, at a time when the country has clearly lost confidence in us as the House of Commons. We have to reflect on the seriousness of the constitutional challenges that we face, as well as the economic challenges. It is the combination of the two that makes our situation so serious.
	The seriousness of the economic situation was brought home to us by last week's unemployment figures, which showed an increase of 250,000 in three months—the fastest quarterly increase on record, taking unemployment to the level it was when Labour came to office in 1997. The Opposition's fear is that young people in particular will be the victims of the recession, one estimate being that if, tragically, unemployment were to rise to 3 million, more than 1.25 million of those unemployed people would be aged under 25.

Ian Stewart: If unemployment is a tragedy now, why would the hon. Gentleman not accept and admit it was a tragedy for 3 million people to be unemployed when he was in government?

David Willetts: Indeed, it was a tragedy when 3 million people were unemployed before. The aim of our debate today is to identify the measures that can avoid that happening again. That is what we are focusing on.

Oliver Heald: I do not know whether my hon. Friend had an opportunity to see the recent statement by the Association of Learning Providers, pointing out how excellent the community programme under the Conservatives in the 1980s was, and saying that something similar, coupled with apprenticeships, could be a way of ensuring that apprentices do not lose their education and skills because they are thrown out of work. Will he look at that idea?

David Willetts: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is certainly an idea that needs to be considered.
	Although the recession has increased unemployment already, it is worth remembering that even in the boom years when the economy was growing, we were suffering from an increase in the rate of youth unemployment. The rate of unemployment among people aged 16 to 24 grew from 13.4 per cent. in 1997 to 14.4 per cent. in 2007, so even in the good times before the recession hit we were already going backwards and losing ground, compared with other OECD countries.

Lindsay Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman is very generous with his time. I agree that skills are important, not only for young people but for everyone. Does he share my belief that we should be investing in skills and keeping people in employment through the short-time working subsidy, rather than allowing them to go to the jobcentre and trying to reskill them there? Would we not be better off investing in employment through the short-time working subsidy?

David Willetts: That is an interesting idea that is worth considering. Indeed, that is something else—going back to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald)—that we introduced in the early 1980s, when unemployment was high before.

John Bercow: I have an unresolved concern about clause 84 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill. My hon. Friend has at least two brains and probably an exemplary memory, so I trust he will recall that both on Second Reading of that Bill and at questions to the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills—that is to say, on two separate occasions—I raised my concern that clause 84 as it stands is overly prescriptive because it would preclude from participation in apprenticeship schemes people with special educational needs, who might be well suited to an apprenticeship but who do not have level 2 and level 3 qualifications. The Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon), and the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), said that that concern would be addressed. I hope that in the other place it will be.

David Willetts: For a terrible moment I thought my hon. Friend expected me to remember what was in that clause, without jogging my memory. I am grateful to him for reminding us. It is an issue about which he is rightly passionate, and he is correct. One of our concerns about the Government's approach to skills is that they are so obsessed with funding only the production of paper qualifications that people who, for whatever reason, may not be capable of getting a national vocational qualification level 2 are often deprived of access to training under the Government's new model.
	I remember a conversation at, I think, Coventry college, with a young lady with learning difficulties who was doing a course in horticulture. Because that course would not get her to an NVQ level 2, it was no longer going to be provided because of the priorities that the Government had set for the Learning and Skills Council. It is very important that people who can benefit from learning and from the most basic training, even if it will not get them an NVQ level 2, continue to have access to training and apprenticeships. My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that.

Lembit �pik: rose

Rob Marris: rose

David Willetts: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik).

Lembit �pik: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making just that point. It strikes me, as a former training and development manager, that the worst thing we can do is to be over-prescriptive on the process and outcomes from a distance. Does he agree that the best thing we can do is find a system that delivers high-quality training but allows training providers to provide what is needed to achieve the outcome we all wantnamely, employment?

David Willetts: The hon. Gentleman may have been studying the widely read green paper that we produced on the subject, because that is absolutely our approach on the Conservative Benches.

Rob Marris: rose

David Willetts: I shall take one more intervention and then try to make some progress.

Rob Marris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity. Further to his response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), will he have a word with the Conservative-run council in Wolverhampton, which has cut 640,000 from the adult education service budget over a two-year period? That is absolutely monstrous, because it cuts courses for the very people whose access to education and training the hon. Gentleman supports.

David Willetts: There have been savage reductions in adult education because of the priorities of the hon. Gentleman's Government and the way in which the Learning and Skills Council allocates funding only to those courses that produce paper qualifications. If the hon. Gentleman cares so much about the subject, he should sign the early-day motion that I and my hon. Friends have tabled, supporting adult learning and asking the Government to change their approach so that the cuts of 1.5 million places in adult learning over the past few years are reversed.

Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend not think it a real cheek for the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) to talk that way when the LSC has said that the Hitchin campus of North Hertfordshire college cannot go ahead with the building project that it has been encouraged to put up? The hon. Gentleman tells us about cuts, but, goodness gracious, this Government have cut back hard. My constituents really use the facilities, and we in Hitchin need the building programme to go ahead.

David Willetts: My hon. Friend speaks for many Members, from all parts of the House, who are very concerned about what is happening to the proposals for their local further education colleges and their capital programmes.

Julian Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Willetts: Before dealing with that issue, I give way to my hon. Friend.

Julian Lewis: When my hon. Friend turns to that horrific topic, will he make reference to Brockenhurst college in my constituency, which I think he knows a considerable amount about, and the terrible position it has been left in as a result of the LSC's appalling mismanagement?

David Willetts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: I did indeed visit Brockenhurst college recently for a briefing on the problems that it faces. I hope to turn to that specific issue in a moment, but, first, I should like to make some progress, because I have a bone to pick with the Secretary of State.

Ian Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Willetts: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's intervention in a moment.
	The bone that I have to pick concerns what is happening to the number of young people not in education, employment or training. On the Government's own figures, which we obtained in a parliamentary answer, and which have been constructed in a consistent series only since 2000, the number of young people not in education, employment or training in 2000 was 630,000. In 2008, eight years later, the figure had increased shockingly to 860,000. When I released the Government's figures, the Secretary of State responded by saying that there had been a straightforward deception. He added:
	What the Conservatives don't take into account is that there are far more young people of that age group in our society than there were 10 years ago.
	He therefore says that, because there has been such a big increase in the number of young people, it is misleading to count the absolute figures. However, I invite him to make that point to the Prime Minister, who, when challenged in this Chamber on the number of NEETs, said:
	In 1997, 5.2 million 16 to-24-year-olds were in full-time education or employment. The figure is now 6.1 million.[ Official Report, 22 April 2009; Vol. 491, c. 229.]
	If the Secretary of State believes that referring to absolute figures is a straightforward deception, I invite him to agree that the Prime Minister's use of absolute figures in that answer in the House was clearly a straightforward deception. If the Secretary of State looks not simply at the absolute figures but at the proportions in respect of what is indeed a growing number of young people, he will find that in 2000the base from which we have to take these statistics12.3 per cent. of young people were NEETs, and that by 2008 that proportion had gone up to 14.2 per cent.
	There has been an increase in both the absolute figure and the proportion of young people not in education, employment or trainingand it happened even during the boom years. It is important that the Government recognise the scale of the problem over which they have presided and do not attempt to avoid the implications of the failure of their own policies.

Ian Stewart: rose

David Willetts: I now give way to the hon. Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart).

Ian Stewart: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who has been extremely kind in allowing me to intervene again. He will not know of my personal interest in these matters, although some of his colleagues will, and I should say that at times I am not an uncritical friend of the Government. My point is meant constructively. I recruited and served youth training scheme trainees, youth opportunities programme, or YOP, trainees, community enterprise scheme trainees and community programme participants. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that in those days, his Government's provisions were make-work programmes without technical and training content. Does he agree that the Government should spend more money, because training and skills are expensive? Would he spend more money on the training and skills element?

David Willetts: We have put forward practical proposals on how, in this very financial year, we could put in more moneyparticularly, for example, to help young people who need training in science, technology, engineering or maths, also known as the STEM subjects. However, we need a mix. We need work experience; it is better to be doing something than to be doing nothing. If we are to emerge from this recession with a stronger and better balanced economy, it is absolutely essential that we invest in training and skills. That is why the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills is so important and why my hon. Friends and I have called this debate.

Mark Lancaster: On a more positive note, I am sure my hon. Friend will join me in commending the innovative work of the Open university when it comes to reskilling young people. Does he share my concerns that that fine institution has not been well served by the Government in the past couple of years?

David Willetts: My hon. Friend is an eloquent advocate of the Open university, which I have enjoyed visiting with him. He is absolutely right: the Open university, which has an enormous role to play, has suffered from the Government's reductions in funding through the notorious equivalent or lower qualification, or ELQ, cuts. To be doing that during a recession seems absolutely extraordinary.

Eric Illsley: rose

David Willetts: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who I hope will speak eloquently in favour of the case for his college.

Eric Illsley: I hope to do that a little later. For now, I just want to address the hon. Gentleman's point about young people not in education, employment or training. It is not true that the Government did not make efforts to reduce the figures. My area of Barnsley has traditionally had a low take-up of post-16 education and training; last year, however, it managed to reduce its number of NEETs from about 15 to 8 per cent. thanks to the valiant efforts of the Connexions service and Government funding. If a constituency such as mine can do that, other areas obviously can. We managed to do it through Government funding and very hard work by our local Connexions service.

David Willetts: I completely agree that it is possible to reduce the number of NEETs. Indeed, I have visited some fantastic programmes, often run by social enterprises, that do just that. I remember going to one in Keighley, for example, that was clearly reducing the number of young people not in education, employment or training. However, as in the example of those with learning difficulties, I was told that when the programmes do not yield a level 2 or level 3 national vocational qualification rapidly enough, the LSC cuts back the funding. A lot of programmes help to get young NEETs doing somethingmotorbike repair or whatever. However, programmes that do not immediately get students a paper qualification of the type that the LSC is willing to fund are suffering. That is partly why the number of NEETs is going upit has gone up in absolute terms and as a percentage of the number of young peopleand why the Secretary of State's attempt to escape the implications of those figures was so irresponsible.

Ann Cryer: rose

David Willetts: I will give way to the hon. Lady, although I seem to be giving way a lot at the moment.

Ann Cryer: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Keighley, my constituency. I understand that he was recently there, but is he aware that Keighley now has a 35 million LSC-funded capital build programme due to be completed next year, and within budget? I look forward to that development, which will form part of Leeds City college, and I hope he will wish it well. We are heading in a new direction in Keighley, and I am very proud of what is going on.

David Willetts: I am pleased for the hon. Lady that that capital programme is going on in her area. There is a lively debate about the Leeds City college plan. I personally think it is important that the merger mania in further education does not go too far. I am here to speak on behalf of the 144 colleges with capital projects that are not being funded in the same way as in her area.

Maria Miller: As a fellow Hampshire MP, my hon. Friend may be aware of an organisation in my constituency called ITeC. It has a fantastic record of success87 per cent. of its students, who are between the ages of 16 and 24, go forward to be placed in employmentyet it is facing significant cuts because of LSC funding problems. It is also facing the prospect of cutting up to 50 places before the end of Julythe sorts of places that would help my constituents to get back into work. Would he care to comment on that?

David Willetts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The reason for this debate, and the point that we make in the motion, is that there is an enormous gap between the rhetoric from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State, which is all about the importance of investing in skills in the recession, and the reality on the ground, which is the complete opposite of what they talk about in this Chamber. Further education colleges cannot secure the capital funding that they need to improve their provision, and many practical training courses are being cut because of the inability of DIUS and the LSC properly to manage their funding streams.
	Undoubtedly the most serious crisis in skills provision is in the financing of further education capital projects. I would likeon behalf, I am sure, of Members on both sides of the Houseto pay tribute to the work that colleges do. Many of us who visit colleges in our own constituencies and around the country realise that they are crucial in improving social mobility, providing practical training and giving people hope that they can emerge from this recession with more skills and better opportunities in life. I am sure that we all also appreciate the excellent work that the Association of Colleges does on behalf of colleges.

Gordon Marsden: rose

David Willetts: I will just make a tiny bit more progress, and then give way.
	I have been visiting a range of colleges that are suffering from the capital funding crisis, and I have been shocked by what I have discovered. Last week, I was at Huntingdon college, where I was briefed at first hand about the problems that it faces. It clearly needs to move to a new site, which it has already secured. It is part of a regeneration project that now has a question mark over it.

Jonathan Djanogly: rose

David Willetts: My hon. Friend, who represents that constituency, is catching my eye, and I happily give way to him.

Jonathan Djanogly: I am pleased that my hon. Friend is mentioning the college in my constituency, which was grateful to him for visiting and taking the time to hear about what is going on there. He will have seen the state of its dilapidated 1960s buildings, where the staff are doing the best they can. Does he therefore understand why my constituents and staff at the college are appalled that they have lost out on 40 million that was promised for redevelopment at a time when we need to be investing in training, not taking money away?

David Willetts: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, may I say that some of the interventions are now long enough to be mini-speeches? A large number of Members will be seeking to catch my eye, and this is a half-day debate. Although interventions are important, contribute to the debate and help the whole thing along, every one means that it is less likely that an hon. Member will have the opportunity to make his speech.

David Willetts: My speech is being cut even more rapidly than the FE capital programme.
	I accept the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) makesI have listed other colleges, which have a similar story to tell. One example is Brockenhurstmy hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) is in his placeto which a clear commitment was made to provide new training opportunities. Colleges have often been encouraged to bid and then told, Ah, you're only bidding for 20 millionthat's pathetic. Have you thought of bidding for 50 million or 60 million? They have been actively encouraged to do that. Even when the original idea was for refurbishment or a modest set of improvements, they were told, No, knock the whole thing down and go for a grandiose capital project. Having had their hopes raised by the LSC, the Department and Ministers, they now find those hopes dashed. That is a cruel trick to play on a crucial part of training and skills in our country.

John Denham: The hon. Gentleman has said several times in the House and outside that Ministers have encouraged colleges to submit inflated or over-grand bids. Will he give me just one example of a Minister going to a college and asking it to withdraw its bid and submit a new one? If he cannot, I would be grateful if he stopped making that allegation.

David Willetts: I shall deal with the Secretary of State's responsibility in a moment. He has to accept some responsibility for the LSC's actions. As with his denial of the figures for NEETs, it is not good enough for him to try to escape responsibility for the policy, when he must have known what was going on. If he intends to tell us that, for the past 18 months, when the LSC was telling colleges to bid for more capital, he knew nothing about it, he is admitting to incompetence and failure to discharge his responsibility as Secretary of State.

Justine Greening: South Thames college, which is just outside my constituency and used by many of my constituents, received the other piece of bad advice that colleges got. It had an ambitious project and was advised to submit it in two halves. It got funding for the first half, but funding for the second has been put on hold, so it is stuck with a half done project that is no use to anyone.

David Willetts: My hon. Friend is right. Some colleges have already started demolishing part of their fabric, and lessons are taking place in temporary classrooms as they wait for permission for a capital project. In other colleges, the new project was to be part of the wider regeneration of an area. Many serious problems face at least 144 colleges.
	I want to ask the Secretary of State some specific questions on behalf of many of those colleges about what is going on. My first question follows from his intervention. Why did it take so long for the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, for which he is responsible, to realise what was happening?
	We know from Sir Andrew Foster's excellent report that alarm bells were sounding as early as February 2008, when the LSC's director of property and infrastructure prepared a report. Its analysis of the capital promises being made concluded:
	This simply proves that the continuation of the current payment profile of projects is unaffordable to the Council.
	We know that that report from February 2008 was discussed by the LSC's capital policy group in April 2008. We also know from Sir Andrew Foster's report that the Department attended all the meetings of these groups at a senior level as an observer. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State said, and I accept his word, that he knew about the problems with the capital funding of FE only in November 2008.
	How on earth can we have a Department in which senior officials are aware from April, possibly February, that they have an unaffordable set of capital commitmentswe know from the minutes, which I obtained through freedom of information requests, that members of the Department's top management team attended the meetingsand the Secretary of State seems to have been kept in ignorance for six months? That is an extraordinary way to run a Department.

Gordon Marsden: rose

David Willetts: If the Secretary of State will not answer that challenge, I will happily accept the hon. Gentleman's intervention.

Gordon Marsden: The hon. Gentleman's litany of concern for colleges would have rather more force if the Government whom he supported in the 1990s had done anything about their funding. Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that his position is greatly undermined by the fact that last year the National Audit Office pointed out the appalling lack of investment from his Government before 1997?

David Willetts: The one thing that colleges all say is that when they were funded by the Further Education Funding Council they were trusted to exercise discretion, which meant that they could tackle local problems such as NEETs without being funded by the Learning and Skills Council simply to produce paper qualifications. Colleges look back upon that freedom to run their own affairs very fondly indeed, and we are committed to restoring it to them. The best way to ensure efficiency and high performance from colleges is to give them the freedom to run their own affairs, and that is what we are committed to doing.
	I want to pursue the important question of exactly why it took almost a year, from the first report by the Learning and Skills Council, in February 2008, for the Secretary of State to make his first public comment on the matter, which he did in late January 2009. Indeed, even now we are still waiting for him to come to the House to make a proper oral statement about what is happening to college funding. It is now 15 months since the problem was first identified. When he last made a written statement to the House, he said:
	I will make a further statement to the House after the recess.[ Official Report, 1 April 2009; Vol. 490, c. 72WS.]
	We have already had that recess; in fact, we are about to have another one, and still there is no sign of the Secretary of State volunteering any information. At every stage, the information has had to be secured by us, making freedom of information requests, tabling written questions and calling debates. It is a pity that at no point has he felt able to come to the House to volunteer information in Government time about what is happening to our colleges.

Ann Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Willetts: I am going to make some progress.
	We know from Sir Andrew Foster's excellent report why the problem built up in the way that it did. Sir Andrew gave one reason why the information was not percolating through to the Secretary of State:
	I am left with a distinct feeling that bad news was itself bad news, too difficult to handle; yet this is exactly what management has to do.
	People were not willing to bring to the Secretary of State the bad news about what was happening in the Learning and Skills Council and in further education capital projects. I regard that as a serious dereliction of duty.

Rob Marris: rose

Ian Stewart: rose

David Willetts: Let me make some more progress.
	The problem is worse than that, however. We know, from the freedom of information requests that we have made and from the minutes that we have read, that the no bad news culture spread as far as giving deliberately misleading accounts of what happened at some of the crucial meetings of the Learning and Skills Council. The minutes of the meeting on 17 December 2008, which was attended by the Secretary of State's senior officials, as all the previous ones were, show the following crucial item, when the problem was finally confronted:
	Council asked that a correction
	be made to the minutes of the previous meeting. The minutes continued:
	The report stated that 'At its meeting on 5 November 2008 the Council did not have time to consider and determine the project proposals...recommended at the...October Capital Committee meeting'.
	That was what the minutes of the November meeting stated. This is what was added subsequently:
	It was noted and acknowledged that the main underlying reason had been concern over affordability.
	In other words, it was recognised that the minutes of the previous meeting had been misleading. The council had pretended that the problem was that there was no time to discuss the capital projects; they admitted, at the subsequent meeting, that the underlying reason was concern over affordability.
	The problem reached the stage that the minute-taking in the Learning and Skills Council was deceitful, in that it was not willing to acknowledge the capital problem. That is why there was a failure of management in the capital project. At no stage was anyone openly reporting between the LSC and DIUS or between DIUS officials and Ministers about what was happening. The Secretary of State has to take responsibility for that culture, and for the way in which the Learning and Skills Council functions.

Ian Stewart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he has been generous with his time. This is an important issue, and it is important for us to get to the bottom of it. I am intrigued by the details that he has put forward today, but is he aware that, when the former chief executive of the Learning and Skills Council stood down, he went on record to say that he did not become aware of the issue until October, and that the reason for that was, he claimed, that the council was looking at in-year figures? The hon. Gentleman has hit on some interesting points today, and perhaps we can get to the bottom of this.

David Willetts: There were clearly managerial failings within the Learning and Skills Council, but I do not think that it is feasible to say that the problem was simply a matter of those failings. We, the Opposition, are trying to hold the Government to account and to find out why there was a culture of bad news not being reported, of minutes of meetings being misleadingly reported, and of crucial information not being conveyed. We need to find out why there was almost a year between the problem first being identified and any public statement being made by the Secretary of State, and why we still have not had the statement that was promised before the last recess. As hon. Members in all parts of the House understand from other contexts, there is a need for openness, and a lack of openness has contributed to the scale of this problem.

Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Willetts: I am going to try to make some progress, because many other Members want to speak.
	I want the Secretary of State to comment on certain other crucial points. We need him to tell us, authoritatively, how many colleges are affected by this problem. The figure of 144 comes from a letter that I received from the Learning and Skills Council after I had asked questions in the House, but we need the Secretary of State to give us an updated account. As soon as the list of colleges was released, I started getting e-mails from people asking why their college was not on it. We then discovered that there were other colleges involved that had not been on the first, official list, but we have not had a further, authoritative update from the Department on how many colleges it thinks are affected by the crisis.
	May I also ask the Secretary of State what criteria will be applied as he tries to get the further education colleges out of the appalling mess that they find themselves in? We realise that there will have to be priorities, because there is a capital overhang of 3 billion or more, and that the needs of all the colleges cannot be met easily or rapidly. However, there needs to be far more public information than we have had so far on the criteria that will be applied and on how the limited amount of money will be dispensed.

Gordon Marsden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Willetts: No, I want to make some more progress.
	We are told that one criterion will be whether a project is shovel-ready, but there will be others. What about the projects that are part of the wider regeneration of a town or district, for example? What priority will go to them? We also need to know what will happen to those colleges that have made commitments to buy land or commitments to move. How much weight will be attached to that consideration?
	It will be temptingand I suspect that the Secretary of State will succumb to the temptationto say that the crucial issue will be to knock down the building costs charged by the building industry, and indeed there might be some savings to be made in that way. Will he acknowledge, however, that one reason that these projects have turned out to be so expensive is the extraordinarily cumbersome regulatory procedures surrounding them, involving preferred builders and preferred planning consultants who might be approved of for one region but not for another? Many colleges have told me that they could have delivered their capital project at a much more modest price than it was ultimately billed for, if only they had been free from the bureaucracy of the LSC.
	Will the Secretary of State also explain exactly how costs that have already been incurred by colleges will be treated? According to the Association of Colleges, 187 million-worth of expenditure that was thought to be part of capital projects might already have been incurred, but if those projects are no longer going ahead, that money could count as current expenditure instead. Counting it as current expenditure could drive colleges into deficit. I see my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) in his place. He, too, has raised that matter, because it affects his local college. Some colleges might find themselves in breach of banking covenants if their current expenditure budgets are suddenly hit. Therefore, we need authoritative advice about the accounting treatment in these circumstances and about the prospects for colleges to get redress for the costs that they have already incurred.
	It is interesting to look through the minutes, because another revealing item from them suggests one of the reasons for the secrecy surrounding all these matters. The minutes state:
	Members asked that a clear action plan be in place to respond to any legal challenges arising from its decision to carryover project approvals from its December 2008 meeting.
	One suspects that the LSC is legally vulnerable when colleges have incurred these items of expenditure; again, we are waiting to hear some authoritative guidance from the Secretary of State.
	Members of all parties will be concerned about the problems facing colleges in their constituencies and I want to give as many of them as possible the opportunity to raise their specific concerns. However, as well as noting the individual injustices and grievances, we should not lose sight of what this tells us about the importance of investing in skills in a recession and this Government's failure to give FE colleges the opportunity to do just that.
	If we wanted to know what was wrong with this Government's approach to skills, I could think of no more vivid example than the recent report from the UK Commission for Employment and Skills. The Secretary of State would not need to read even the executive summary; all he needs to read are the statistics on the cover, which show the international ranking for the three levels of skills. For the highest level, the UK's position is 12th internationally. The Government's ambition is that we should be eighth by 2020, but the report projects that, on current policies, we will be 10th. For intermediate skills, we are currently 18th in the international league table. The Government's aim is for us to be in the top eight, but the report says that on current policies we will go down to 21st by 2020. As regards low skillswe have a particular obligation to people with low skills because the issue is fundamental to social mobilityour current international position is 17th. The Government's aim is for us to be eighth by 2020, but the independent report suggests that, at this rate under this Government's policies, we will be 23rd internationally in 2020. That is why we need a different approach and why I commend the motion to the House.

John Denham: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from House to the end of the Question and add:
	notes the Government's belief that in a recession it is important to give people the skills they and their employers need to recover from the downturn; commends this year's Budget for investing 1.2 billion in creating jobs and providing training to young people who have been unemployed for 12 months; further notes that there are now more 18 to 24 year-olds working or engaged in full-time education compared to 1997; commends the Government for its sustained investment in skills with record numbers of people now receiving training, far more than was originally planned for this year; further commends the Government for spending over 5 billion on adult skills this year, helping three million learners, and for increasing investment in higher education by 24 per cent. in real terms since 1997; further notes that the Government is prioritising helping people to gain employability skills; further notes that the Train to Gain budget has risen to 925 million this year; further notes the budget for apprenticeships is over 1 billion this year and that there are 250,000 starts planned; commends the Government for confirming that no current learner will lack the funds to complete their course; further notes that this Government is spending 2.6 billion on further education capital projects over this spending review period; and further notes that Sir Andrew Foster has recently produced an independent review of the Building Colleges for the Future programme.
	I welcome this debate, but I am surprised by the temerity of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) in raising it. The hon. Gentleman quite often repeats unfounded allegations that, as the House heard earlier, he is unable to justify. That is a shame, because the issues we are debating are of real importance to our society and they are better conducted by not making allegations that cannot be substantiated.
	It is true that, as this country works to recover from the impact of the global recession, it is going to be British business and the skills of the British people that ultimately ensure that the upturn comes as quickly, as strongly and as sustainably as possible. Investing in the skills of the British people is one of the most important things we can do. Through training, we can improve their productivity and the productivity of their companies. Through training, we can give individuals the skills they needskills to keep their jobs, skills to get new jobs and skills to develop their careers and provide a decent life for themselves and their families.

Oliver Heald: When I was a Minister, I expected my officials to tell me as soon as they knew something was going wrong, in case the Opposition spokesman gave me a hard time. In fact, it was the right hon. Gentleman. I would like to know whether he works on the same basis; and, if so, what went wrong? Was the junior Minister not told about the meetings that officials were attending where all the money was obviously wrong?

John Denham: We will come on to the Learning and Skills Council in due course, but I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, yes, I do expect to be told. One of the reasons I commissioned the Foster reportit did not just appear out of nowhere; I commissioned it before anyone had a clear picture of the size and scale of the problemwas that I wanted to understand what had happened. That is the way I have always worked as a Minister. I gave him a hard time when he was a Minister and I was Opposition spokesman, and I think I often told him things that he did not know, but Ministers do and should expect to be informed. Where that does not happen, clearly it is a matter of regret and we usually follow such things through.
	The hon. Member for Havant set out a series of charges. I intend to rebut each one. I will set out clearly why he is wrong and why his criticisms are misplaced, and say why the Government should be proud, although never complacent, about our record. I will do more than that: I will set out why, according to all the evidence we have on the Opposition's record and their current plans, they pose a threat to everything that has been achieved in recent years.
	I warn any Conservative Member who plans to intervene on me that I will challenge them to tell their constituents the truth about how Conservative plans would hit their constituents and their colleges.

Rob Marris: Does my right hon. Friend find it surprising that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) lambasted rhetoric, but then proceededin speaking to a motion containing some good points, albeit not manyto put no flesh whatever on the bones of how the worthy proposals that he might propose would be funded? It is just rhetoric unless the Opposition say how much they would spend and how they would raise that money.

John Denham: My hon. Friend makes a good point that I will come to later, but I make the point now that, having read the Opposition motion, I was looking forward to a detailed explanation of the plans for young people that were announced with a flourish a few weeks ago and of where the 600 million that is to be invested would come from. Despite speaking for the best part of 50 minutes, the hon. Member for Havant did not even mention his party's policies, where the money would come from and how it would be funded. I will explain why hedespite what I have said, he is a man of integrity, honesty and intelligencecould not bring himself to discuss those policies in the House.

Gordon Marsden: Among the rather curious lacunae in the shadow Secretary of State's speech was any reference to the importance of higher education delivered via further education, yet we know that 12 per cent. is so delivered in this country, notably in my constituency at Blackpool and The Fylde college.
	Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that if we were to take the previous Government's record of investment in higher education from 1992 as an indication of what this Conservative party would do for higher and further education, my constituents and my college in Blackpool would be right to be concerned?

John Denham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government's record of investment over 10 years and of increasing real spending in higher education stands in sharp contrast to what happened in the previous 10 years, when funding per student fell by 30 per cent. The expansion of colleges such as his, which bring the opportunity of higher education to many students who, for all sorts of reasons, either choose not to or cannot travel away from home to go to university, has been an enormous achievement over that period.
	The truth is that much of the speech made by the hon. Member for Havant was made up of complaints that we are not spending enough money on something when everybody knows that the Opposition's policy is to spend less money on everything.

David Tredinnick: I understand that the Secretary of State is trying to blunt the attack from this side of the House, but we are the Opposition and it is our job to bring the problems to his attention. I was at North Warwickshire  Hinckley college on Thursday, at the college's request. It is confronted with a 2.5 million cut in expenditure to which it is already committed, including 1.5 million on Train to Gain, which is 30 per cent. of the budget. Will he please be generous enough to allow me a short meeting with him to explain the situation at the college, where a little extra money would solve a lot of problems to do with committed expenditure?

John Denham: Given the motion, I rather expected some reference to be made to these issues by the Conservative spokesman, but he missed them out entirely. If I may, I shall turn straight away to the position of Train to Gain and the apprenticeships programme, and the hon. Gentleman may then feel that he has been reassured.
	The most important and fastest-growing programme of training for people at work is Train to Gain. It provides training at work, chosen by employers and described by the deputy director general of the CBI as
	exactly the product we need at this time.
	Last summer, of course, the Opposition promised to abolish Train to Gain. In the two years 2008 to 2010this academic year and the nextwe set out to train 1.291 million people. Train to Gain has been hugely successfulso successful that overall we will deliver 100,000 more starts and learners over those two years than we had previously planned. That success means that we are training tens of thousands of people today who might otherwise have started their training only late this year or next year, and who would not have been trained at all if the Opposition had their way. We need as much training as possible in the recession, so that people being trained and their employers can benefit now and make the recovery stronger.

Rob Marris: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case in relation to the official Opposition, the Conservative party. May I urge him, when he has finished wisely and carefully savaging the official Opposition, to turn his attention to savaging the Liberal Democrats? In this debate on skills in the recession, they can muster one MP for a debate that has now been going on for more than 45 minutes. Does he not agree that that indicates what a low priority the Liberal Democrats place on skills in the recession?

John Denham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention, because I must admit that I had not noticed the Liberal Democrat.
	I return to the success of Train to Gain and the Opposition's plans to abolish it and prevent 1.291 million people from learning at work over two years. It is a huge tribute to colleges, training providers and employers that they have done so much to expand training. That backs up the changes that we made to make Train to Gain more flexible and better tailored to company needs, particularly those of small businesses. Obviously no budget can be unlimited, and in the longer term we need to ensure that the commitments made do not outstrip our resources. Because the programme has been so successful, I have considered every way in which I can find more resources. Today, I am confident that the number of people who start Train to Gain this year will be in line with our published plans. As I have said, overall there will be 100,000 more starts and learners in 2008-09 and 2010-11 than we first planned.
	There has also been a huge increase in apprenticeships for the over-25s. We expect 60,000 over-25s to start apprenticeships this year, compared with the 29,000 that we had planned. That, too, is good news, and we still have sufficient moneymore than 1 billionto start 250,000 apprenticeships in the coming year.
	In relation to the point made by the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) about north Warwickshire, the very success of the programme, which is doing so much for the country and for learners, has meant the LSC adjusting and readjusting contracts with colleges and providers. That has created uncertainty for some colleges and other providers. The LSC is writing to providers today, giving a similar message to mine about the coming year. It is working quickly with individual providers to resolve funding allocations for the rest of the year. I refer to the Opposition motion in saying that that letter will include an absolute guarantee that the funding will be there for every learner who has started a course or apprenticeship to complete it.

Joan Walley: I am heartened by the news that we have just heard, but in view of the announcement that he has just made, can my right hon. Friend give me an undertaking that where there is uncertainty about local colleges having sufficient funds to carry on providing all these wonderful training opportunities, there will not be any need to make redundancies of any kind?

John Denham: The Learning and Skills Council is working with colleges as quickly as possible in order to provide certainty. What I wanted to do today was give the headline news that the number of learners whom we expect to start on Train to Gain in the coming year is the same as the number that people will have seen in published plans. It is hard for me to give details of each college, but I have at least been able to specify the global amount of training that is available.

David Anderson: The Secretary of State has referred to the policy vacuum in the Conservative party. What does he think are the party's plans for the 22,000 union learning reps or the 250,000 learners who went to learn at work last year? Does he think that it has any plans for them?

John Denham: As far as I know, the Conservatives are completely silent on the issue. On Friday I presented certificates to learners at the town depot union learning centre in Southampton, in my constituency, and everyone there was well aware that it was the Government who had invested in union learning reps and made it possible for so many people to learn.

Gordon Marsden: I thank my right hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way. Is he aware that the Conservatives recently produced a lengthy policy document on skills in which union learning reps were not mentioned once? Given their failure to make any commitment, is it not the case that we can have no trust or belief in their ability to support the programme if they ever came to office?

John Denham: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which I am sure will be noted by all who care about the future of union learning reps. Incidentally, that does not apply only to union learning reps themselves. One of the interesting aspects of the programme is the number of employers who say that it has transformed their productivity and the quality of service they provide for the people to whom they sell products.

David Willetts: The Secretary of State is trying to address what is indeed a serious worry felt by many learning providers about their funding for 2009-10, but may I ask him to clarify one key point? When he refers to 2009-10, does he mean the Government's financial year or the academic year, which is what many providers use for the purposes of their planning? The letters that they received recently from the Learning and Skills Council concern the academic year 2009-10.

John Denham: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point now. His motion refers to it, but he forgot to mention it in his speech. That will suggest to many providers that he does not consider it a particularly important issue and would rather spend his time reading out large chunks of the Foster report, which all Members have been able to read for themselves.
	The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that the figures that we published, which I have described as planning totals, relate to academic years. The Department obviously works in the context of financial years, as do all of us who come under the Treasury's remit, but the figures to which I referred related to the current academic year. I made that clear at the time, but I have now clarified it again.

Mark Hoban: The Secretary of State spoke of the uncertainty of funding for colleges for the next academic year. Fareham college in my constituency expects to recruit another 100 to 150 16-to-18-year-olds in line with increasing participation, but there is currently no certainty in regard to whether that increase will be funded by the Hampshire branch of the Learning and Skills Council.

John Denham: I shall deal with that point later, but I shall deal with it now as well. The hon. Gentleman should know that the budget for the next two academic years includes a total of 655 million for the sixth-form and 16-to-18 college sector to enable those colleges to expand and offer additional places. That is a very significant investment in the future of young people, but the Conservative party's policy of refusing to borrow and refusing to invest so that we can grow our way out of the recession means that it could not be made if it came to power. The hon. Gentleman should tell Fareham college that the Labour Government is to invest 655 million in young people over the next two years, and then say If you vote Conservative in Fareham you will not get the money. That would be the honest way of approaching his constituents.
	It is our belief in a demand-led training system that has enabled the successful expansion of Train to Gain and adult apprenticeships. As I acknowledged, it has created tensions between the dynamic entrepreneurial training system we want and the need to manage public finances, and I know that the LSC wants to work out with providers how those tensions should be managed in future.
	Our work is not just about delivering the promises we made in the past. The recent Budget gave us new resources to invest, but the Opposition could not do that; they oppose our decision to use borrowing to sustain investment to grow our way out of recession, so they could not have introduced the guaranteed offer of work or training for young people who are out of work for a long period. As part of that package of 1.7 billion of investment, my Department will be able offer more than 80,000 training places for young adults who have been unemployed for more than 12 months. We will start that from the autumn. The Opposition also could not match the extra 250 million we are already putting in place to help people with flexible training and advice to improve employability skills and to get them back into work, including 75,000 training places for people who have been out of work for six months. People will be able to start that training when they are out of work by going to college, and then continue it when they are in work through Train to Gain.

Ann Cryer: Keighley is doing very well, with a new-build college, which will be excellent, and I appreciate that. Does my right hon. Friend remember, however, that the Thatcher Government got rid of the industrial training boards, which were wonderful organisations for producing training for skills? What will the Conservatives' demolition job be next time if, unfortunately, they get elected again?

John Denham: The reality is that everything we hear from the Conservatives suggests that they will return pretty much to the same position, which is that if employers are not prepared to pay for skills training, that should not happen.

Maria Miller: The Secretary of State talks a great deal about the investment he plans to put into this sector but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) pointed out, that does not marry with the reality on the ground. What message would the Secretary of State give to organisations, such as ITeC in my constituency, which are cutting places before the summer comes because the money he is talking about simply is not forthcoming?

John Denham: The hon. Lady clearly has not quite grasped the gist of the debate so far. What I have saidvery clearlyis that we have far more people in training today than we had planned to have in training today. I have also said that in the coming year we will train the same amount of people whom we had planned to train. Because we have had the great success of training people early and because budgets are not unlimited, we are having to adjust the budgets of training providers, but I say to the hon. Lady that this is not a cut. We are not reducing the number of people being trained. More people will have been trained over this two-year period than we had planned. Next year, as many people will be planned for as the providers would have been expecting. I have acknowledged tensions in the handling of that, but that is the picture that she needs to take back to her college. She should say to it, The good news is that, despite the fact that the training system in this country is currently training more people than it had planned, it is still confident that it will be planning for as many people next year as it had set out. That is enormously good news, and I hope I can rely on the hon. LadyI am absolutely sure that I canto take that message back to Basingstoke, rather than to return there and say that the situation is different. The LSC will send the detailed allocations out to colleges as soon as possible.
	I have talked about the investment that the Budget enables us to make in the future of young people, and which the hon. Member for Havant and his party would not match. That is why it is so extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman raises the NEETs issue. There is an old debate here, and at the crux of it are two issues. The first issue is the hon. Gentleman's reluctance to give the Government the credit for having 1 million more young people in education, work and training than 10 years ago. That was not an act of God or an accident; it was something that Government policy set out to achieve. The second reason we have disagreed with him is that he has always made the most of the figures by including in his list of NEETs young mothers who are at home bringing up families. I always feel that he comes here to attack the Government over NEETs and then goes outside to make speeches about the importance of family policy. I have always acknowledged that we should focus on a smaller group of young people who seriously are detached from the labour marketfrom education, work and training. In some ways, that is the debate that he and I have had with great regularity over the past two years.
	Let us acknowledge that today there is a more pressing debate, because times are harder for young people. We are determined not to write off a generation of young people, as the Conservative party did in the recession of the late '80s and early '90s. That is why we are raising the participation age over the next few years to keep young people in education and training and work with trainingthat practical measure to help young people is opposed by the Conservativesand why we are putting a further 655 million into 16 to 18 learning this year and next to enable colleges and sixth forms to meet rising demand. The Conservatives' policies could not match that investment, and the hon. Gentleman cannot honestly match our guaranteed offer of work and training to young people who cannot find work for a long time. I am happy to debate NEETs. It is a serious issue and we recognise the challenges facing young people today, so I must say to him that investing in those young people and creating opportunities for work, for training and for education is how we must tackle the number of young people who are doing none of those things, not cutting the support we provide for them.

Gordon Marsden: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that work-based learning is a key element and that in my county of Lancashire that grew by 30 to 35 per cent. between 2006 and 2007? Does he also agree that part of this is about using frameworks and structures in which employers and the general public can have confidence and that the Conservative party, by its failure to get wholeheartedly behind the diplomas process and, indeed, aspects of the apprenticeships process, has hindered rather than assisted the process?

John Denham: Yes, it has always been a matter of shame that the Conservative party has blown so hot and cold on the development of the diplomas. For many young people, they provide a range of options of learning that has not been in place previously, including the important work-based learning.
	Let us turn to the further education capital programme. The position we are in, with over-commitments made and expectations raised unrealistically high, should not have happened. I have made that clear and, as Secretary of State, I have also come to the House to apologise to those who have been affected. It was me who asked Sir Andrew Foster to carry out the review, and I, like the hon. Member for Havant, think that his report has set out fairly the mismanagement that led to the problem. But let us be clear about the background to this debate. Twelve years ago, when the Opposition were in power, there was no budget for FE capital. [Interruption.] This is rather important, because when hon. Members talk movingly about their dilapidated 1960s buildings, as happened today, we must ask how long buildingssometimes those much older than thatwere left to be dilapidated. It is relevant that the starting point [Interruption.]

Adam Afriyie: They have had 12 years to sort it out but failed.

John Denham: The hon. Gentleman asks me about 12 years and whether a Government should have managed, within that period, to transform all the legacy that his party left. I have to say no, but we have made a very good startwe have done much better than we would have done with the zero capital budget that we found.
	The second background point is that the Conservative party, despite its history, fails to give any crediteverto the huge scale of investment that has been and is being made in FE capital. I would have a lot more time for the criticisms that are made by the Conservatives if they acknowledged the scale of what is being achieved. Since 2001, 700 projects, at nearly 330 colleges, have been funded and in those areas that has transformed the FE estate for learners. In the current spending review we were committed to, and will spend, 2.3 billion, and that was on top of the 2 billion spent between 1997 and 2008. It is true that despite the huge scale of that programme, its management by the LSC has raised the expectations and hopes of colleges. I can understand the feelings of those who do not know where they stand or feel that they might not get their colleges within the time scale that they had hoped. That is why, in the recent Budget, my Department was allocated 1.2 billion on top of the investment that we had already received, enabling us to get vital schemes going within the next two years and to plan for the future.
	By contrast, the hon. Member for Havant went to the Association of Colleges conference last October, where he was asked whether he could guarantee that the Conservatives would deliver the planned spending even for 2010-11. He told the conference that he could not. That is the truth. While we are working through the LSC and with the AOC to begin to prioritise more schemes and to get them under way, a Government with the hon. Gentleman in it would cut the schemes that are already under way.
	We are doing what the resolution calls foror, rather, the LSC is working with the AOC to work out priorities and to deal with the difficult task of prioritisation. The LSC is out to consultation at the moment and is working with the AOC on those criteria. When I have received advice from the LSC on that, it will be in a position to publish the criteria.

John Hayes: rose

John Denham: The hon. Gentleman is trying to intervene as if there is a major issue here. This has to be got right. We know that large numbers of colleges are anxiously awaiting these decisions and that is why it is important that the LSC, working with people in the sector, gets this right.

John Hayes: I acknowledge the investment that the Government have made in FE capital in the past, but there is a major issue, so will the Secretary of State answer two very simple questions? First, how many colleges are affected140, 150, 180 or 200? Secondly, did the officials in his Department know about the problem in the first half of last year?

John Denham: The figure of 144 colleges that we have published is the information supplied to us in March by the LSC through its analysis. I understand that it has been suggested that other colleges felt that they had schemes in preparation, regarded those schemes as being in the pipeline, had been in discussions and so on. In reality, that is the latest and most accurate figure with which I have been provided by the LSC.
	The Foster report sets out in some detail the meetings that took place where my Department was represented at official level in the early part of last year. Foster's conclusion is that opportunities were not taken to prevent this problem from happening. That is undoubtedly a fair judgment. I would say two things about that. First, there is no ambiguity that Ministers were first alerted to the existence of a problemnot the problem as we now define it, but a potential or emerging problemin November. Secondly, Foster raised the core issue of the clarity or otherwise of how accountability is exercised between a Department and its non-departmental bodies. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) will know that when we published the Foster review, I asked the permanent secretary of my Department to carry out a view of the accountability arrangements. We have many non-departmental bodies, and they are all different in nature. It is critical that officials know precisely what level of authority they are expected to exercise.
	The hon. Gentleman will know that in the case of the LSC the previous chief executive, who was himself not informed until late in the day, took responsibility for what happened and left the LSC. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the LSC is being replaced by the Skills Funding Agency, which will not be a non-departmental public body. I think that that will help. I hope that something like this will not happen in the future, but in such a situation the lines of accountability and responsibility will be much clearer.

Joan Walley: I recognise that the Secretary of State has come to the House and said that there are problems, and that he takes responsibility for putting those problems right. However, in respect of the Foster review and the discussions taking place between the Learning and Skills Council, further education colleges and their associations, it is critical that he looks at the role of regeneration in places where communities need to be transformed. I welcome the fact that on 4 March he announced to the House that detailed consent would now go ahead for the Building Colleges for the Future programme in Stoke-on-Trent and for seven other colleges. I have already had a meeting with a Minister in his Department on that. The Stoke-on-Trent college application related to a phased programme, which included two new builds on the Shelton and Burslem sites. It is critical that regeneration and the ability of people to change their aspirations and skills are part of the new review, so that the much-needed investment in the Burslem campus in Stoke-on-Trent can go ahead, too.

John Denham: I recognise the points that my hon. Friend raises, and the way in which she has argued the case for her constituency. Of course she is right that the relationship between a college programme and regeneration must be one of the criteria. I do not want to get drawn into the criteria debate. I simply say, and I hope that the House will understand, that it is relatively simple to list the issues that should be taken into account; the challenge is to decide what weighting should be given to the different factors, so that when everybody looks at the final outcome, people at least feel that it is fair and consistent, although it will be impossible to produce an outcome in which everybody is happy. That work is going on at the moment.
	I should make some progress, and bring my remarks to a close. The hon. Member for Havant repeated his criticism about the reduction in the number of non-vocational leisure courses as a result of our having prioritised training for work. That is one of the reasons he wants to scrap Train to Gain, but his priority is wrong. It is not just me saying so; the CBI and the Institute of Directors have both said that Train to Gain is the right policy. The CBI said that it was
	concerned by plans
	that is, Opposition plans
	to divert money from the Train to Gain programme, as this is designed to ensure that public funds are invested in training that delivers improved business and workforce performance.
	The Institute of Directors said, in response to the Opposition's proposal:
	The Train to Gain scheme is not perfect, requires greater flexibility and needs to promote higher level skills as well as the basics. But the principle of the initiative has great merit and the focus of policy should be on improving the service rather than diverting funds away.
	I am as keen on learning for its own sake as anyone. That is why I worked across Government to launch the White Paper, The Learning Revolution, and why we have just opened bids for a 20 million fund to get informal learning going in new ways and new venues. However, the real priority today must be the skills that we need to get Britain out of recession.
	Finally, let me turn to the hon. Gentleman's proposals for new investment, because I find them a little distasteful. We are talking not about party political point-scoring, but about the hopes and aspirations of an anxious generation of young people, who deserve to be treated honestly and with respect. When he announced his 600 million package, we could not understand where the money was coming from. Then the Conservatives told us: it was to come from the cuts that they had already announcedthe 610 million-worth of cuts to my Department's budget for this year, announced by the Leader of the Opposition on 5 January. I wrote to the hon. Member for Havant on 15 January, asking what he would cut. He never replied. That is the disgraceful scam revealed. The idea is to claim that one could cut 600 million without saying how, and then publish a really attractive list of proposals funded from the same non-existent cuts. The point is that that is not the way to treat young people or their parents. They deserve to be treated honestly and with respect. The hon. Gentleman proposed this debate, but I think that he made a mistake.

Stephen Williams: Investment in skills and training is always important, whether we are in the middle of a period of prosperity or a recession; the latter is the background to this debate. I am sure that all three Front-Bench spokesmen visit many further education colleges as part of our work. I certainly visit the City of Bristol college and Filton college in Greater Bristol, and see the important work that is done in those colleges to upskill the population of Bristol. I have seen the skills work that they do in construction, and in catering. I have even had several lunches at City of Bristol college prepared by its excellent catering students, and served by those who are learning waitressing and waitering skills, if that is the right word, in the college.
	I have even been offered hair and beauty treatments on some of those visits. You and I have something in common, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I do not think that tonsorial assistance in those matters would be very productive. I have had to decline several offers to have my legs waxed. However, I was interested to learn that accountancy training was offered in further education colleges. I am the only Member of the House to hold a professional qualification in taxation and business as a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation. Given Mr. Speaker's earlier statement, an innovation urgently required for all hon. Members would be a crash course in accountancy, audit, transparency, disclosure and perhaps in some cases, professional ethics. The reputation of the House and the skills sets of all hon. Members would benefit from such a course.
	Last week was adult learners week, and the Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon), the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and I spoke at the excellent reception on the Terrace to promote adult learning. Several reports from the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education were discussed. One stark finding was that after 12 years of a Labour Government, while much has indeed been done, there is still a real social mobility gap affecting those who participate in adult education and learning. People from the top two social classes are twice as likely to participate in learning post-school as people from the two lower socio-economic groups. At the reception, I quoted Helena Kennedy, a Member of the other place, who some time ago said that the problem with English education in particular was as follows:
	If at first you don't succeed, you don't succeed.
	That is a serious problem with English education and skills.
	That is not helped by the Government's fixation on the belief that learning should lead to an accredited qualification or certificate. Learning, as the Secretary of State acknowledged in his closing remarks, can have other purposes relating to emotional well-being. This morning, in Bristol, I visited the charity Studio Upstairs, which works with adults with emotional and mental health problems through the medium of art. It invited me to do a drawing, and I did a not-very-good illustration of the Houses of Parliament as seen from the other side of the Thames. None the less, the work that the charity does is important, and learning does not necessarily need to lead to an accredited qualificationit has other purposes as well.
	The motion tabled by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) rightly mentioned the fact that far too many people are not in education, employment or training. We can have a debate about the number of people involved and what the situation was in 1997, and what the situation is in 2009, but I must tell the Secretary of State that the Education and Skills Act 2008, which raises the age of compulsory participation in education and training, is not the answer. Engagement, particularly with young people, is much more important. If, at the age of 14, people have mentally dropped out of education and at 16 are deemed to have failed the academic education offered to them under existing arrangements, forcing them to stay until they are 17 or 18 is probably not going to lead to a significant improvement in their life chances. Positive engagement with those young people, however, could make a difference. Many of us are well aware of the work of the Prince's Trust, and in my constituency, the charity Fairbridge does excellent work with young people who have been marginalised, perhaps from their families, and have certainly not achieved well in education.
	There is an important role, too, for social enterprisea new type of business model that should be encouraged. Last week, I visited the social enterprise, Aspire Bristol. It works with adults who have been unemployed for a significant time, or people who have recently been homeless but who are now seeking to return to a productive role in society. It takes them on and pays them just above the national minimum wage in order to learn such skills as window cleaning, gardening and decorating. Social enterprise could be more encouraged and would be able to earn a decent income that it could pass on to participants if local government and central Government were able to find more of a place for it in their multimillion poundor, in the case of central Government, multibillion poundcontracts and procurement programme.
	I turn briefly to the further education capital programme. I shall not repeat everything

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman, as ever, is making a well-informed case, but before he moves on to the nub of the FE issue, will he acknowledge what the Secretary of State did not acknowledgethat many of what the Secretary of State calls non-vocational, recreational courses are the very routes by which some of the most difficult disengaged people are able to re-engage in education and training, and that they provide opportunities for further training, leading to employment, for those such as women returning to work after having time out?

Stephen Williams: As usual, the hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point. I could be cruel and mention the mistake that the Government made in their decision on equivalent and lower qualifications cuts last year. One consequence is that the ability of universities to offer evening classes to their communityfor instance, in Bristol, where people from all walks of life can come together to study for a course that does not necessarily lead to a certificate at the end of itwill be taken away. Many universities will probably start closing down continuing education departments as a direct result of a decision that the Secretary of State instructed the Higher Education Funding Council to take, and many people will lose out on the introduction to learning that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings mentioned.
	I come back to further education colleges. I shall not repeat everything that the hon. Member for Havant said, or all the many points that have been made as we discussed the issue over recent months, both in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall. Last week I visited Sussex Downs college and met the principal there, and the principal of Plumpton college, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). Those colleges are in a difficult situation. They have not, under the Learning and Skills Council's criteria, got as far as approval in detail, but none the less, they have well worked-up schemes.
	Plumpton college had a three-stage scheme. Stages one and two have already progressed and stage three was the conclusion. Sussex Downs college has invested millions of pounds in professional fees in building up the case that the LSC required for it to make its application. It was specifically encouraged by the LSC to come forward with ambitious plans. The Secretary of State asked the hon. Member for Havant for an example of encouragement having been given to a college to come forward with ambitious plans. There is one for him. But now those ambitious plans do not look as though they will be realised. Many other colleges throughout the country are in the same situation.
	We need certainty from the Government soon as to what will happen both to those capital schemes and to the professional costs that the colleges have already incurred in working up their plans. As the hon. Gentleman said, we also need some transparency from the Learning and Skills Council. Unlike the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the LSC does not routinely publish its minutes on its website to show how it arrived at its decisions.
	The Budget, which has not featured much in the discussion so far, announced a further 300 million in order to try to apply some sticking-plaster solutions to the further education capital funding fiasco. As well as that sum being given to the FE sector, the Budget contains a target for efficiency gains for the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills to find. I understand that the target over the rest of the comprehensive spending review period for the FE and skills part of the Department is 340 million. On the one hand, the Government promise something to sort out a problem that they have created, but, on the other, they are going to take it away through efficiency savings.
	The provision of adequate buildings is not the only barrier to participation in learning; there are other costs, too. The motion refers to the training costs of those who are
	over the age of 25,
	although I do not remember the hon. Gentleman speaking to it specifically in his speech. There is, nevertheless, an absurd anomaly in our financial structure, whereby, once someone reaches 25, it is not deemed appropriate for the state to fund their first participation in a level 3 qualification. We are in a time of recession and the work force are ageing, and people in a dynamic economy, whether in a recession or prosperous, will have to retrain throughout their working lives, so enabling adults over the age of 25 to acquire a level 3 qualification free of cost should be a priority.
	There is also the question of encouraging employers to take on more apprentices. For small employers, in particular, the cost of off-the-job training is often an important barrier, so re-allocating the growth in the Train to Gain budget of 500 million over the forthcoming years would make an enormous difference to employers and their ability to take more people into adult apprenticeships. The Government have set themselves some ambitious training and educational attainment targets for 2020 as a result of the Leitch report. However, they will be much harder to realise if we do not have investment in further education and skills or ensure that it is secure for the future.
	One of the most interesting parts of the hon. Gentleman's motion which, again, he seemed to skate over in his speech, is the section about science, technology, engineering and mathsSTEMsubjects. Last week, it was my pleasure to welcome to the House some Bristol university young engineers and a graduate engineer who are working with Airbus in Bristol. They are taking part in a national project, sponsored by Airbus, to discuss the relationship between aviation and climate change. I have said many times in such debates that there is a consensus around what we are going to do about our other 2020 targetsapart from the Leitch targetson climate change. If we are to meet our ambitious targets for a carbon neutral economy, or for a much lower dependence on carbon, we will need more scientists, engineers and technicians. Otherwise, it will be impossible to realise those aims. If we do not have the people to construct the wind farms, service the dynamos or expand nuclear energy, although my party does not support that, we will not be able to meet our 2020 climate change targets.
	The problem with STEM subjects begins right the way back in our secondary schools, as do many of our problems in education, so we need to enthuse children to take part in science and engineering subjects. In that respect, I praise the work of Bristol university's ChemLabS outreach programme, which goes to schools all over the west country and invites pupils and teachers into the chemistry laboratories at Bristol university to show children experiments, retrain teachers in experimentation and make science exciting and appealing. As ever, information, advice and guidance are absolutely essential, too.
	There is a big gender imbalance in engineering. When I met those five individuals last week, I said to them, There's only one problem with you: you're all men. That is a problem for the engineering profession, but the profession itself has to do some work, too. Government is not always the answer to every problem; the engineering profession must do more to raise the esteem in which it is held. Two or three years ago in Bristol, we commemorated the bicentenary of Brunel's birth. In the 19th century, Brunel was a celebrity figure comparable to many well-known politicians, authors and artists, but we do not have a celebrity engineer at the moment. There is a gender balance and high participation in catering; perhaps engineering needs to find equivalents to Jamie and Delia to encourage young people to take part.
	There is a national emergency; we are in a deep recession. In his concluding remarks, the Secretary of State referred to the anxious generation of young people who are leaving school and do not know what is ahead of themparticularly if they aspire to go to university. As we already know, there is to be a crisis in respect of finding sufficient places for those who get the right A-levels or other level 3 qualifications sufficient for university entry in September this year; it looks as if there will not be enough university places to meet the demand. Those who will leave as graduates in just a couple of months' time, after doing their finals and receiving their degrees, will enter the most uncertain graduate job market for decades.
	There is a stark statistic from the last deep recession of the 1980s. I hope that we will not see in this recession a mirror image of what happened to adults, particularly those over 40, who lost their jobs in previous recessions. Many such people in south Wales, where I grew up, and other depressed industrial areas of the country, did not find another job for a couple of decades afterwards; they were never able to return to full productive work. In this recession, we must all agree that investment in skills for those people is absolutely essential. The issue is not only about young people.

David Anderson: indicated assent.

Stephen Williams: I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees.
	We need investment in capital and skills now. We need a new, sustainable and ethical business model for the future. Above all, we need to give everyone in this country a sense of urgency and of hope that we are going to solve the crisis in our economy and in our politics as well.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. That starts from now.

Eric Illsley: I want to make a few comments about Barnsley college in the context of the motion and the amendment to it. Obviously, I will speak about the Building Colleges for the Future programme as it affects the college. I shall go on to say a little about the college's performance in relation to the motions before the House.
	As the House knows from previous debates, Barnsley college was part of the Building Colleges for the Future programme. Like other colleges, it had a four-phase college programme. Two phases have been completed on budget and to time, but unfortunately the third phase, which started towards the end of 2008, was halted in January when the funding was stopped. Unfortunately, the college had started demolition work on its Old Mill Lane site. The town centre has been left with a completely demolished area, which was the flagship part of Barnsley college.
	Construction stopped. Miller Construction, the contractors, had to stop work; its contractors have been laid off and some have been made redundant. We are now waiting for the results of the Foster review and what follows on from it. We Barnsley MPs have had meetings with Ministers and the Prime Minister to try to find a way forward. We have a real difficulty: there is a demolition site where part of the college once was. The building programme has been delayed for several months and it looks as if that will continue.
	When we met representatives of the Yorkshire and the Humber learning and skills council, we were told that the Foster review would draw up criteria which, hopefully, would be considered by the end of April. We were also told that decisions would be made by the beginning of May. That has not happened. The Foster report has been produced, the criteria are being drawn up and the meetings are being held. However, the announcement on which colleges will go forward will be made, we hope, on 3 Junethat, at least, is what the colleges were led to believe. Since then, it looks as though the timetable may have been reviewed. In discussions with the college principal as recently as Friday, it came to light that perhaps the decisions will be made only tentatively on 3 June. It should be borne in mind that the applications of 145 colleges will be decided on, and only a handful will go forward. We are obviously anxious, as are all the other colleges, that our application should be proceeded with, because we do not have accommodation for our students. We will have temporary buildings, but not the buildings that we had hoped for.
	The LSC drew up its so-called Key Steps and Timetable, with five steps and a timetable for progressing the situation:
	Cross LSC National Officers group meeting to score potential projects against criteria w/c 18 May...LSC National Officers group send recommendations on projects to be funded to LSC National Capital Committee enhanced with regional council chairs attending w/c 18 May...LSC National Capital Committee meeting to score potential projects against criteria enhanced with regional council chairs attending w/c 25 May...National Capital Committee send recommendations to LSC National Council 27 May...LSC National Council meeting to approve National Capital Committee recommendations 3 June.
	So far, so good. However, that appears to have been amended, with the contractors to the LSC now stating:
	3rd June 09Discussion on how many and which projects will be selected as the initial (Priority 1) tranche to go forward (selection onlynot approval)...The selected colleges will then have to go through the VfM
	value for money
	process to reduce costs which will comprise...5 week period post 3rd June to sort out project/tender costs and achieve savings as required...6 weeks after that to finalise all costs...Final approval during August 09...September 09 Start on site.
	If that timetable is applied to Barnsley college, assuming that we are successful in getting our programme back on track, it will mean a nine-month delay in the programme going forward. None of the colleges decided upon on 3 June will be able to start work until September.
	It is possible that because Barnsley college is halfway through the programme and has already gone through most of the paperwork, planning process and so on, those post-3 June criteria may not apply. I sincerely hope not. We hear about a value for money process to reduce costs and to achieve savings, but Barnsley college has already been required by the Foster review to reduce the third-phase costs from 42 million to 33 million, and the programme had to be quickly redesigned to accommodate that, so we have already lost 9 million of our project funding through the consultation process and the problems that have been created. In addition, the college has spent 12 million of its reserves and borrowings and has a substantial interest bill to meet in 2010. If our college is not selected on 3 June, it will face real financial difficulties, because it cannot expand its student base on the basis that it had hoped in order to meet the extra costs. The refurbishment and redevelopment were carried out on the basis that the student body would increase and the college would receive further funding to help to meet the costs of what has been spent.
	It is extremely important to Barnsley that the college capital rebuilding programme is completed. We are extremely concerned not only for the third phase, which is to rebuild a demolition site, but for the fourth phase, which is to rebuild the sixth-form college provision.
	Barnsley college deals with 90 per cent. of sixth-form teaching in Barnsley, yet we are contemplating not having a sixth-form college if the final phase of the project goes by the wayside. It is important to look at those items, and the time scale and the reason for its sliding further from 3 Juneas far as September. Given the intervention of summer holidays and so on, that start date is likely to slip even further.
	The refurbishment programme is important to Barnsley college because our record on post-16 education has historically never been good, but it has improved in recent years and continues to improve, and the college is in a strong position to ensure that it meets Government and local priorities. That was shown in its annual Ofsted inspection, which took place in March and resulted in four significant progress and three reasonable progress judgmentsone of the best results in the country. The college has an ambitious business plan to consolidate and grow its success in surpassing targets and meeting national and local priorities.
	We will have 300 more FE-funded learners later this yeara 9 per cent. increase on last year. Student numbers in that category are currently 241 above the LSC target. We have recruited 1,830 adult FE-funded learners100 more than the LSC target. There are approximately 150 more learners than the previous year in that categorya 6 per cent. increase. We have heard much about Train to Gain this afternoon. The number of learners under that scheme is 198 more than the LSC target.
	There are currently 20 per cent. more applications for the 16-to-18 programmes. That is wonderful news for Barnsley. We have heard about the problems of NEETsindeed, I intervened on the Opposition spokesperson because we have worked hard in Barnsley to try to reduce the number of young people in that category. A 20 per cent. increase in the number of applications for post-16 education is therefore encouraging.
	Adult success rates have improved by 8 per cent. in the past three years. The Train to Gain success rate is 91 per cent.well above the national average. That is not something that one has associated with Barnsley's education in the past few years.
	The apprenticeships programme has rapidly expanded, with success rates of 81 per cent.again, well above the national average. The college will deliver the diploma programme10 separate diploma linesin September. It has been approved to provide 14 diploma lines, and the remainder will start in September 2010.
	On worklessness, the college has just been successful in winning a contract to improve the employability and skills base of long-term unemployed people who live in Barnsley. That is great news and a success story for Barnsley college.
	However, all that will go to waste if we get it wrong or if the capital programme is not reinstated quickly. We have already considered redundancies for the college's construction programme. I am concerned about whether we can deliver all that increased education provision in the forthcoming academic year and the subsequent one. Without the college rebuilding programme, we will struggle. Again, I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to examine the timetable and try to encourage the LSC to stick to the time scales that it has set out in its programme. I also urge him to try to get decisions made and, particularly for Barnsley, allow the programme to continue. Otherwise, we have only half a college.

David Curry: Although we are, of course, all interested in how we got into this mess, I am much more interested in how we get out of it. It would be easy to give a litany of complaints and simply recite the virtues of one's own collegeI will not omit to do that. However, I want to pay tribute to the LSC's regional staff, who deal with Yorkshire and Humber. They are deeply embarrassed by what has happened, they are doing their best to help and I would not like the contamination of mismanagement at the centre to be attributed to everybody who works for that organisation, which will be replaced in any case.
	I want to begin by talking about the district of Craven. The north Pennines is fairly remote and has an economy that rests on extremely fragile pillars. A lot of the area is a national park, but tourism has a relatively low value and is predominantly made up of day visitorsindeed, many people spend precious little when they get into the dales. The area depends on agriculture, and we all know that some sectors have experienced extraordinary difficulties. Indeed, the Rural Payments Agency was probably ahead in the charts as the agency that had made the biggest financial mess, until the Learning and Skills Council came along as a late competitor for that accolade, and there are still problems in getting the money to farmers.
	There is also the hidden industry of all areas of the countryside, which is looking after the elderly. Anyone who goes to any significant village in my constituency will find households looking after elderly people and an awful lot of people working part time to make money to supplement low income being earned elsewhere in the family, enabling people to maintain, for example, an agriculture holding. There is also a host of small businesses. We have the Skipton building society, which is the giant in the areaa very prudent giant, as a matter of factbut there is also a huge constellation of small businesses, ranging from micro breweries, of which there has been a refreshing multiplication, to those involved in package recycling and other tiny operations.
	Craven is therefore an area of high employment. I do not claim that the demands of Craven rest on economic hardship in the way that it might be experienced in places such as Barnsley, which the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) spoke about. However, although there is high employment, there is also low pay and a lot of part-time employment. If anything were to illustrate the vulnerability of Craven's economy, it is foot and mouth disease, which simultaneously shut down agriculture and tourism. That demonstrates the urgency of finding an economic base that is more diversified and less vulnerable to catastrophic events.
	Many people in Craven would also complain of a draining of public services from the area, as there has been pressure to introduce economies in public expenditure. The police presence, as well as the rank of the police establishment, and many other public services, if not the ability of the people doing the serving, have been seen to be reduced.
	What Craven needs is a much better skills base. Indeed, Skipton building society and the smallest small businesses both complain about their difficulty in recruiting people with sufficient skills, whether they be IT or more basic skills. Craven also needs much better facilities in winter, so that there is a tourist offer in the winter months to supplement the tourist offer in the summer, and a vigorous small business sector that can take advantage of the spread of broadband, which is not yet universal in my constituency, and the exceptional environmental advantages of Craven. Broughton hall, with its sophisticated business park, is the exception, not the rule.
	There are also particular needs that stem from the fact that Craven is not merely a rural area; rather, a great deal of it is upland, which is the most difficult kind of rural area. There is a huge difference between a rural area in East Anglia, where someone could strike a billiard ball and watch it go for miles, and my constituency, which straddles the Pennines. In addition, Craven is the only area in North Yorkshire that has selective education. The two excellent selective schools in SkiptonErmysted's and Skipton girls high schoolare outstanding, but they ought to be outstanding, given the sociology of North Yorkshire and the selection process. However, that means that it is incredibly important to ensure adequate provision for the 16 to 18-year-olds who do not come out of the selective system.
	That brings me to Craven college in Skipton, which is at the heart of a series of interlocking programmes designed to address the broad economic disadvantages and the particular sociology of Craven. Ten years ago, Craven college had between 500 and 600 full-time students in one year group, and about 2,000 part-time students. Now it has 1,600 full-time students, of whom 1,250 are 16 to 18-year-olds drawn from some 80 schoolsthe college serves not only Craven but a huge rural constituency that goes way beyond the boundaries of Craven itselfand some 5,000 people in part-time employment in any one year.
	So the college's expansion has been constant, and it has taken place using very limited resources and in the context of certain disadvantages, which I shall explain. First, it operates on 11 sites. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) was complaining that his college had to operate in 1960s buildings. How lucky it is! Two of our buildings are Victorian, and the college operates in 11 sites across Skipton. This has two implications: the first relates to costs and the division of effort; the second is the very real health and safety problem of operating in buildings that are far from being fit for purpose.
	A further disadvantage of being in a rural catchment area is that it is often difficult to achieve the necessary critical mass of students to make a course viable. It might not be too difficult to assemble nine or 10 people who want to study the same subject at the same time and in the same place in a metropolitan area, but it is difficult to do so in a rural area. That means that the college is punished in the sense that it does not get the funding, but there are also fewer opportunities because it cannot achieve the critical mass necessary to realise them. The rurality issue has not been addressed in the funding of colleges of further education.
	I said that Craven college was at the heart of the regeneration programme for the Craven area. There is a new campus planned. It is in the third tier of progress; the work is awaiting approval, but the plan is very well developed. It is part of one of the wider regeneration programmes that so many colleagues have mentioned today. In particular, it will incorporate a complex for climbing and caving. That might sound eccentric, but climbing and caving are major tourist attractions in that part of the Pennines and the Yorkshire dales, and a knowledge of those subjects will assist the development of winter facilities and enhance what is a unique selling point economically in the area.
	If the activities of the college could be brought together on one site, it would gain through much greater economies of scale in terms of costs and teaching efficiency, and such a move would also make a huge difference to the social environment of the college. It would enable all sorts of interactions to take place between the students that are impossible if they end their day in 11 different places around the town.
	So what is going to happen? There have been two recent events, on the first of which I would like the advice of the Minister. Within the past few days, the Learning and Skills Council has offered to pay half the 356,000 fees that have been spent on developing the Craven college project, provided that the head of the college signs on the dotted line by noon tomorrow. Should he sign, or is the LSC offering an out-of-court settlement against the threat of a legal action to recover a greater proportion of the fees, such as I understand some colleges are nurturing?
	I have had discussions with Craven college, with which I have dealt in every year since I have been a Member of Parliament, and I have to say that we have not carried the fiery cross around the countryside. We have not said that the college would collapse or that further education in Craven would to come to a halt. We will struggle through, as we have always done. So we are not being alarmist. We are trying to be responsible in dealing with this very real issue, but the head of the college faces a real dilemma over how he should respond to that offer. I pay tribute to the regional staff of the LSC for that offer, because I think they are trying to be helpful.
	We have also talked about Train to Gain. Craven college was harried to step up its Train to Gain activities. It was positively cajoled to expand its programme. It has done so, and it was expecting to spend about 1.6 million on such provision up to the end of the academic year that we have been talking about. That money has been stopped in its tracks overnight, and the provision has been capped at some 1 million. There was no warning of that at all. So having gone out to employers to persuade them to sign up to the Train to Gain programme, the college now has to go back and say, Sorry, we can't deliver on the very programmes that we encouraged you to sign up for a short while ago.
	What is the way forward? We know that the Government have promised 300 million a year in capital expenditure until 2013, and we also know that there are going to be some transparent new criteria based on need rather than on first come, first served, with the deadline set for spring 2010still a long way away. I ask the Minister to ensure that when those criteria are drawn up, there is a fair assessment of rural needs.
	Rural needs are not simply an offshoot of a national need; they respond to difference economic and social circumstances, and entirely different definitions of how to be efficient apply in serving the sort of wide rural area that my college serves. I do not want to do down any of the metropolitan areas; we are on the edge of Keighley, and we take students from Keighley as a matter of fact. What I do want to ensure, however, is that there is fair crack of the whip for the rural areas I am talking about. In other words, whether we are judged to have succeeded or not, we want to be able to say that at least it was a fair call and a fair judgment. We want to be judged by meaningful criteria that we are capable of delivering and fulfilling, not against criteria that are designed for entirely different circumstances.
	I would ask that all programmes be started from scratch. We should start with a blank sheet of paper and the all programmes that have reached a certain degree of maturity should be examined in the light of those different criteria in the different circumstances. A set of programme priorities should be drawn up that reflect the new criterianot simply the first come, first served basis. If the Government really want the best bang for their buck, if they really want to ensure that their money is being spent as well as possible and if they really want to be assured of value for money, they must do that. If they want to be able to turn around and say they have sorted out an appalling mess in an equitable way so that people feel that fairness has been applied to all sections of the country in all the different circumstances of the country, that is what they should do.
	I hope that the Government will be fair in addressing those problems. I have not gone into too much detail today, as we will be joining the long procession of people intending to meet the poor Ministerhe will be able to do a Mastermind on colleges of further education, I suspect, in a couple of months' timeand we can provide the detail then. If the Minister does what I have suggested, Craven will continue to give him, as it has always has done, the biggest possible bang for the buck. The benefits will then be spread over a huge area of rural England.

Hugh Bayley: It is a great pleasure to follow two other Yorkshire Members in this debate.
	Our country is in the middle of an extremely severe recessionthe first global recession since the 1930s. It is global in the sense that, for the first time since the 1930s, global output is likely to fall. This recession, as we all know, was triggered by the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the United States. It spread quickly around the world because of the globalised nature of the banking and financial services sector these days, and it was amplified by light-touch regulation in this and other OECD countries. One of the lessons to be learned from this recession is that the Thatcher-Reagan doctrine that private institutions are always best regulated by themselves rather than the state has come to an end. I do not want more regulation, but I do want smarter regulation so that the lessons of the recession are learned.
	Before I turn specifically to deal with further education, let me say that I chair the Economics and Security Committee of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. The week before last, our committee was in Washington DC to meet the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to discuss the recession. They predicted that, from the peak to the trough of the recession, global output is likely to fall by 3 to 4 per cent. They also say that if Governments such as ours and other OECD Governments had not adopted fiscal stimulus packages, global output would fall by something like 9 per cent.
	Let me explain the difference. If global output falls by 3 or 4 per cent., it will mean a very severe recessionmore severe than any since the second world war. But if output falls by 9 per cent., we will be in the territory that existed between the two world wars when there was a decade-long depression and unemployment soared for years at a time. The fiscal stimulus is a necessary response and it is right to put Government funding behind education and training, particularly vocational training. I was pleased to see hundreds of millions of pounds being set aside in the Budget for that purpose.
	It is extremely important to invest in skillsboth in vocational training and in broad liberal educationso that we see benefits in our national economy and so that individual citizens in our country see the benefits of jobs and job security. It is important to do so now, so that the country benefits when the upturn comes. We do not want to make the same mistake as was made when the Conservatives were in power and people were simply parked on benefits during the recession, without the funding for training, and vocational training in particular, that we have at the moment.
	During the 12 years that the Labour party has been in government, a strong platform has been created within further education to provide the skills training that we need. In my constituency, in 1996-97, some 12.1 million was allocated to York college and the York sixth-form college, which was a separate institution. Since then, the two have merged, and in 2008-09, the budget was 20.5 millionan increase of 8.4 million, or 69 per cent.
	It is not just in York that additional resources have gone into further education. There are eight colleges in York and North Yorkshire. Two are specialist collegesHenshaws college, a specialist college in Harrogate that provides education and training for people with visual impairment and additional physical or learning difficulties, and Askham Bryan college, one of the largest land-based colleges in the countryand there are six more general further education or sixth-form colleges. Between them, and including Craven college, which the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) spoke about, they work with some 50,000 young people and have a combined turnover of 70 million a year.
	In the past five years, the Government have allocated some 80 million of capital to improve the colleges. They have partnerships with almost 10,000 businesses and train some 7,000 employees a year. They have degree and higher-level programmes for more than 2,000 students. The colleges in York and North Yorkshire educate nearly 12,000 16 to 18-year-oldsmore than all the school sixth forms in York and North Yorkshire put together.
	It is important to have the right balance of numbers to guarantee choice for young people at the age of 16 between courses and between settingsschool and further education. The two Departmentsthe Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills and the Department for Children, Schools and Familiesneed to talk further about how the school sixth form presumption works. In 2007-08, which is the latest year for which I have figures, there were 4,129 16 to 19-year-olds from York in college and 1,079 in school sixth forms. Each individual 16-year-old has a choice about whether to attend one of the five schools in York that has a sixth form or to go to York college, or indeed one of the other colleges, such as Askham Bryan or another further education college close to York.
	The schools provide continuity and familiarity for the students. They are smaller and, as a result, provide a narrower range of subjects. They provide extremely good education. York college, like the schools, achieves excellent A-level results, but its curriculum provides about 40 subjects, including a full range of modern languages, which none of the school sixth forms can provide; specialist subjects such as archaeology and ancient history, which have a particular purpose and which we have a need for in a city such as York; and specialist art courses such as photography. Indeed, Freddy Bulmer, an 18-year-old at York college, has just won first prize in the national Colleges on Camera competition. His winning photograph shows the impact that the 65 million investment by the Government and the college in the new York college has had on him and his fellow students. It is good to see excellence coming from a further education college.
	Perhaps I should tell hon. Members that four years ago, after the general election, I did what I usually do after electionscommissioned a local artist to make a limited-edition print to celebrate life in York. The artist I commissioned on that occasion was a young man from York college, Michael Kirkman, who produced a fabulous print of building work at York hospital. That was his choice of subject, which he felt summed up the type of life that people live in York now. I am pleased to say that one of his prints is in the collection of York art gallery while another hangs in the boardroom of York hospital. Several others hang in GP surgeries around the cityit is marvellous work. That, again, shows that colleges can provide excellence at the highest level.
	Recently, Archbishop Holgate's school used the sixth-form presumption to establish its own sixth form. There were concerns from other 16-to-18 educational providers in the area that it might dilute provision elsewhere. There were discussions between the head of Archbishop Holgate's schoolan old and venerable institution headed by John Harris, who is a head teacher I respect enormouslyand the local education authority. They agreed that there was already good level 3 A-level provision in York, but that more level 1 provision was needed for the 4 or 5 per cent. of students who are not in education, employment or training. Archbishop's sixth form is making a real contribution in that field, focusing on the needs of the NEET group and of young people aged 16 to 18 who have disabilities.
	However, there are other schoolsgood schoolsin York seeking sixth forms. If they were all to take individual decisions, we could end up with poorer 16-to-19 provision overall. There is a tension between school choice on the one hand and the LEA's commissioning role on the other. I believe that a different balance is needed on who can take a decision. The Government's decision to give LEAs responsibility for further education and schools will help a new balance to be struck.
	It is important for the Government and LEAs to recognise that learner choice is not the same as school choice. We need learner-centred provision so that young people in York and the surrounding area can choose between school or sixth-form college and between a wide range of subjectsnot just A-levels, but vocational provision.
	I also want to say a word or two about the discrepancy in funding between school sixth forms and further education. School sixth forms receive a premium of about 5.6 per cent. If York college received the same funding as school sixth forms, it would get about 900,000 more per year. Quite quickly, as I have been raising the matter for several years, I would like to see that gap being closed. It is more likely that that will be achieved now that LEAs have responsibility for further education as well as schools.
	I congratulate the Government on their capital funding for schools and for colleges. In 1996-97, schools in York received capital funding of less than 1 million a year. In the 12 years since then, they have received, on average each year, more than 10 milliona tenfold increase for York's schools. As I said, we have a brand new York college, built at a cost of 65 million, more than 20 million of which came in the form of Government grant.
	Once again, however, there is a gap between the capital regime for further education and that for school sixth forms, which receive 100 per cent. capital funding whereas further education does not. In order to build a new college building, York college had to borrow some 4.5 million on its own account, and a proportion of its general income is used to pay back that loan. Schools do not pay VAT on services and equipment, but colleges do. Although both school and college-goers receive the education maintenance allowance, which is an important Labour innovation because it makes it possible for people from low-income families to continue in education after 16, in schools young people from low-income families also receive the benefit of free school meals, which are not available in FE. If one takes all the funding differences together, the gap is not 5.6 per cent., which is what the Government acknowledge, but rather morepossibly as much as 15 per cent.
	Colleges admit a greater proportion of students from disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Some 29 per cent. of those in FE come from such neighbourhoods, compared with 19 per cent. of those in school sixth forms and, for comparative purposes, some 20 per cent. of those in universities. It is important that students from more disadvantaged neighbourhoods get the same quality and level of funding as those in schools, and LEAs must address that.
	I should say a word in response to what the Conservative spokesman said about the problem of overstretch in the Building Colleges for the Future budget. York is very fortunate to have its new college, and I want other people, such as those in Barnsley, to have that benefit, too. I have tabled an early-day motion expressing my concern about the cuts in Building Schools for the Future, and I urge hon. Members to sign it. It makes the case for increasing Government funding for FE capital projects. In an economic downturn, there is a strong case for investment in public infrastructure.
	I regret that the Conservative spokesman did not welcome the level of investment that the Government are putting into collegessome 2.6 billion in the current spending period. I see that he is coming back into the Chamber, and I hope that he will commit to a fiscal stimulus package to counter the recession, including further investment in further education.

George Young: I commend the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) for his tradition of commissioning an important work of art from a local artist following his election to Parliament. I am sure that his successor will wish to follow that tradition.
	I want to drag the debate south from Yorkshire, where it has been for the past three speeches, to Hampshire, where it began with an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). I wish to pick up the point that the hon. Member for City of York and my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made about the fiasco of the Building Colleges for the Future programme.
	Many of us took part in a debate in Westminster Hall in March, when the Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills had an uncomfortable 90 minutes being beaten up by Members of all parties. If I may give him some respectful advice, perhaps his response to this debate might be less pugnacious than it was on that occasion and a little more constructive, bridge-building and conciliatory. Whereas other Ministers have come to the House and told us that they are bringing forward the capital programme for counter-cyclical reasons, he has had to tell us of a freeze in the further education capital programme with projects, far from being brought forward, being indefinitely postponed.
	Two years ago Cricklade college in Andover merged with Sparsholt college, just outside Winchester. Thanks to the energy and commitment of the principal, Tim Jackson, and his team, the quality of education in Andover has been driven up since the merger. They are doing a fantastic job in challenging circumstances, but they have not been assisted by recent events. At the time of the merger, the LSC wrote to me:
	Current thinking is that there will be a required investment of up to 30 million in Andover and 20 million in Winchester.
	It went on to say that those figures were indicative at that stage, but concluded:
	I would wish to reiterate the LSC's commitment to ensuring an appropriate level of investment is forthcoming to support the ambitions of the merged college.
	The scheme grew to 100 million, reflecting the encouragement given to colleges by the LSC to raise their sights and build for the 21st century. On one visit, the LSC officer told the college that he hoped the main administrative building would be knocked down and replaced because it looked dreadful. It was not, and that is not in the plan at the moment.
	The college applied for in-principle approval in Andover last November, expecting the go-ahead in February or March. In the meantime, it got planning consent from Test Valley borough council. The scheme was an integral part of the regeneration of Andover town centre, complementing plans that have already been introduced in one part of the town and are about to be in another. Then, along with 143 other colleges, in March we were told that the deal was off. There is great disappointment in the town.
	To pick up on points that have been made in the debate, I understand that decisions are about to be taken on how to spend the money that is available, topped up by the funds announced in the Budget, which I welcome. It seems that schemes that are shovel-ready, to use the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant, will get the go-ahead, while other schemes that might have progressed in the near future will go to the back of the queue. It would be helpful if the Minister said a little more in his winding-up speech about the criteria that will be applied when deciding who goes first and who comes last, and if he could indicate for local consumption the earliest date at which the project in Andover might now get the go-ahead.
	On top of the capital debacle, there is also a revenue headache as a result of the gamble that colleges were encouraged to take by the LSC in bidding for funds. Some will now turn in financial deficits, which would not have been the case, unless the LSC is able to step in and refund their fees. I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon say that his local college has had an offer of a contribution towards abortive fees, although I am not quite sure why it has to decide so quickly. In the case of Andover, about 70 per cent. of the 2 million spent in fees is now abortive. That risks turning a potential surplus of 500,000 into a potential deficit of 900,000. Will the Minister say something about which colleges are getting help, and of what sort, in meeting the abortive fees?
	The other frustrating thing is that the LSC is responsible for monitoring the financial health of colleges. In many cases, the reason for the deterioration has nothing to do with the college but is entirely due to the LSC. Unless it can come up with the necessary help with abortive fees, some colleges will go into deficit and may breach financial covenants. Many will have to borrow funds from the bank, incurring interest payments.
	I move on to a subject that has not been touched on at allprovision for adults with learning difficulties and disabilities. There is a need for much greater clarity about what is done for adults on the education side of the equation and what is done by social service departments on the social and personal development side. A few years ago, colleges would accept those with learning difficulties on courses, and would interpret the rules broadly. People would continue to attend college year after year, even though they were not really progressing. It was an important part of their life and self-development.
	A few years ago the rules were tightened, and colleges are now required to ensure that courses attended by adults with LDD lead to clear, successful outcomes in qualifications. When an adult has fulfilled the requirements of a particular qualification and there is not necessarily anything appropriate for them to progress to, they are unable to be recycled year after year, so they stop going. That change was made a few years ago at the point of transition. That issue might not be one for the Minister, but it is certainly one for the Government if we are to have joined-up government.
	This morning I was rereading Valuing people now, the Government's three-year strategy for people with learning disabilities. It is very much a health-focused document, with not a lot in it about education, but I found one sentence about education that I will have to read out, in the hope that the House will understand what it means better than I can. It states:
	The cross-government Work, Education and Life Group will also lead implementation of 'Progression through Partnership' (the post-16 education strategy) and the Getting a Life project, which aims to achieve an integrated assessment and decision-making process that will allow people to use public resources flexibly to get the outcomes they want.
	I hope that that means that folk will be able to go on courses that are suitable for them, but I say to the Minister that it is by no means clear how the education-social services interface will work. I hope that he will ensure that there are suitable courses for people with learning difficulties that are provided either by social services or by education.
	I turn briefly to some other issues in the motion. The number of NEETs in my constituency, as in those of other colleagues, has risen. It is now at 185, having risen from 135 in December, five months ago. Many fewer adults are now attending training courses at Andover college than was the case in 2005. I suspect that that is because in some cases there is a real issue of affordability when it comes to the fees. There was a 29 per cent. drop in 2007-08 compared to 2006-07, and a 41 per cent. drop in 2007-08 compared to 2005-06. I hope that the Minister will say a little about the Government's response to that.
	We heard a great deal from the Secretary of State about Train to Gain, which, in a sense, has been too successful. In my constituency, as in Skipton and Ripon, we now have a moratorium on new starts. Private providers and colleges have been told to stop, current activity with employers has been curtailed, and future contracts are being held back to avoid over-commitment in the forthcoming year. There is considerable frustration about the fact that after everyone has been geared up, they are having to be geared down again.
	The subject of unfunded students was raised earlier, and I need to see what the Secretary of State said in response. At present there are about 120 unfunded places for the autumn in my constituency. The college has submitted a bid. The Secretary of State's speech suggested that we might be given answers about the bids; perhaps the Minister could shed some light on that. As for apprentices, there is understandably less capacity in the workplace to take on, in particular, young and inexperienced trainees. Sadly, in Andover we have seen a rise in the number of apprenticeship redundancies, which has pushed up the number of NEETs.
	Let me make a general point. Further education colleges find sudden changes in funding flows very challenging. When commitments to engaging additional staff are required, the stop-start approach to funding is very difficult to manage. As all Members have pointed out, colleges are crucial to the economic and social well-being of the areas in which they operate. They cannot be expected to operate as a very small business might be expected to, moving resources in and out from one week to the next.
	I hope that the Government will exercise continuing stewardship over the financial well-being of colleges. That is especially important when the commissioning of much of their work switches to local authorities, with funding supplied via the Department for Children, Schools and Families, while the overarching stewardship of colleges rests with the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills.
	Finally, let me say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), who will wind up the debate, that it would be interesting to hear whether he considers that we are totally satisfied with the rather blurred responsibility for the age group that we are discussing, or whether he thinks that the issue might need to be revisited in a year's time.

David Anderson: It is possible that I am the only Member present who served a full apprenticeship, although I stand to be corrected on that. When I served an apprenticeship as a mechanic, there was respect for the traditions of people who had served apprenticeships for many years. We felt, as apprentices and as craftsmen, that we were part of a culture in which what was learnt was passed on, and it was part and parcel of the pride that we took in doing the job that young people were introduced to it. It was heartening for me to become a time-served craftsman and work with young people in learning skills. However, it was disheartening for me to be part of a generation that saw the last of the apprenticeships in the industry in which I worked, the coal industry.
	It was directly owing to the policy of the Conservative party that we saw a decline in apprenticeships. It made policy decisions that largely destroyed the coal industry, decimated the railway industry, did away with the shipyards, cut back the steelworks and privatised British Gas, the electricity boards, the water boards and BT. All those were national companies with major training schemes, which employed many, many young people. What happened to young people in my village was that, instead of working with people like meas apprentice mechanics, electricians or weldersthey ended up as apprentice burglars and apprentice drug-takers, and became very good at taking cars without the owners' consent and taking radios from cars. That is not much to pass on to the next generation.
	In the days when I trained with the National Coal Board, everyone had some form of education, right up to degree level. People were not just given vocational training; they were taught how to stay alive underground and, importantly, how to keep their fellow workers alive. A huge vacuum was created at the end of the 1980s and during the 1990s, but I am thankful that my party's Government have begun to fill it. It is true that things are not perfect, but we have, without a doubt, modernised and restructured apprenticeships in a way that addresses the challenges of the 21st century. Those challenges are, and will continue to be, different from the challenges that I faced when I became an apprentice. The fact remains that the Government have invested additional money this year. They have agreed to provide a further 140 million, which will fund 35,000 apprenticeships. That is good for the public, and for the people for whom the apprentices are working. In 1997 there were only 65,000 apprenticeships in the country; today there are a quarter of a million, and completion rates are at an all-time high. That is something we can be very proud of.
	During the Secretary of State's speech, I raised the subject of union learning reps, which is never mentioned by the Conservative party. That may appear unsurprising, given its attitude to trade unions. There are 22,000 accredited union learning reps out there working with people. I was involved, with the National Union of Public Employees, in a scheme called Return to Learn, which helped people many of whom had no literacy or numeracy skills, and experienced great problems even in reading or writing. For the first time since leaving school, in many cases as young as 15, people were told We value you. You may only be doing menial, manual work in society's eyes, but your contribution is important, and because of that we want you to become re-engaged in the world of education. Such schemes have been one of the keystones of workplace learning in this country. Last year, a quarter of a million people were given access to learning at work through union learning reps.

David Willetts: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I had a most enjoyable meeting with TUC representatives only the other week, during which they made the case for union learning reps almost as eloquently as the hon. Gentleman is making it now.

David Anderson: I am very glad to hear that, but I did not hear the hon. Gentleman say I agreed with what they said, and I will continue to provide and develop the union learning scheme. I will sit down and let him say it if he wants to, but it appears that he has no reply.

David Willetts: I was very sympathetic to the case that they made.

David Anderson: I love the hon. Gentleman's use of the word sympathetic. I realise that he has two brains, but it does not take two brains to understand what the word sympathetic means. What I am asking him for is action, but he is clearly not prepared to commit himself to that.
	Last week, I was not talking to the TUC; I was talking to learning reps on the ground at Gateshead council. I was talking to people such as David Smith, who has helped many young people, as well as older people, into the workplace. They benefited from real dedication and real praise from their employers and others who took part in the schemes. Last year I was very proud when an old colleague of mine, Felicity Mendelson, who works for Newcastle city council, was recognised by the Queen for the great work that she had done as a union learning rep. She was awarded the MBE.
	Real credit has been given to people who have done real work for people on the ground. But credit must again be given to the Government for the money that they have invested in the foundations of building colleges, and expanding further education. I am aware of the problems, and it would be wrong for me or any other Member to deny that the LSC has let people down, but I do not think that the Secretary of State intends to do the same.
	Last week I met representatives of Balfour Beatty, who are worried about what may happen if we do not put right what has gone wrong in the last few months. I know that the Conservatives do not agree with this, but I strongly believe that we should be building our way out of the recession. We should be using that terrible term fiscal stimulus, and companies such as Balfour Beattyalong with many other peopleshould be rebuilding colleges and schools. The Balfour Beatty representatives told me that a potential 40,000 jobs are available to people who could be employed in the building industry, but may not be. The Government must start to address that. I hope that, when he responds, the Minister will go some way towards allaying my fears.
	Like every other Member who has spoken so far, I shall say something about the colleges in my area. I want to tell the success story of Gateshead college, which has never been afraid of embarking on partnerships. It does not believe in standing about whingeing, or in promoting doom and gloom. It wants to get on with the real work. That is why last year it moved out of the building in Durham road where it had been for many years, sold that building and went forward in partnership. It has been given 60 million by the Government to build the new Baltic college on the regenerated Gateshead quayside. It has been a tremendous success. There are 7,000 students and 500 staff, working at a college that is a source of great pride to me and the people who live in the area.
	A 5.5 million skills academy on a nearby industrial estate has done tremendous work with companies such as Nissan and others in the automotive industry, which is so important to our local economy. A 15 million academy for sport has also been developed on the former Gateshead stadium site, and I hope it will play a major part in the development of Olympic athletes for this country.
	The college has been recognised across the board. In the last two years it gained outstanding grade 1 marks in Ofsted inspections in all six areas tested. It has a success rate of 83 per cent. and it is within the top 10 per cent. of colleges in the country.
	The college completed the renovation of its estate with the opening of the Baltic campus and the skills academy, the result of a 60 million investment. It has been recognised by the LSC for outstanding financial performance in a very challenging environment, and by Ofsted for providing outstanding value for money. It has provided more than 10 million to local companies for Train to Gain, and turnover has increased by more than 25 per cent. In 2008-09, it also achieved growth in the number of full-time 16 to 18-year-old students, which rose from 1,757 to 2,272. It has been officially named as the top college in the region for delivery of apprenticeships and the lead provider for the National Skills Academy for Manufacturing. It secured the Ford master apprenticeship programme for the north-east and it is the preferred training provider for Nissan. It has also been awarded many other accolades.
	We are proud of Gateshead college, and so we should be, but the outside world is also proud of it. It entered the culture for success competition, and Andrew Dixon, chief executive and judge, said this about it:
	Gateshead College is a shining example of cultural success alongside tremendous facilities and a huge range of effective external business partnerships. This is a business that has grown fast and is loved by its customersthoroughly deserving of the Culture for Success Overall Winner award.
	This is not a doom and gloom story, therefore; it is a story of real success on the back of hard work by many people.
	The college is continuing that work. Shortly before Christmas, it answered the call; Nissan was facing serious problems and it asked the college to help it try to keep people in work. Working with MPs, and with a great contribution from the Secretary of State concerned, the college and Nissan drove forward training programmes from this year to the back end of last year, which extended the working life of hundreds of Nissan employees in Sunderland. Although for some of them it was extended only for a short period, it at least meant they were able to get to Christmas without facing the threat of the dole.
	The college is also working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions, the regional development agency and local authorities to establish an early warning system, so that when people may be about to lose their jobs, or have lost their jobs and have been made redundant, the college and other partners are there to pick up the pieces and help them get back into work as quickly as possible. The college is working closely with the local council, which has decided to bring forward its capital programme. It is helping the council create 500 new apprenticeships, and it is also working with local businesses to get even more apprentices into work. If we want to use a slogan that many people may well have heard of, we could say that this is an example of Real help now.
	This is all about creating choices, and about denying the official Opposition's narrative that everything is doom and gloom and we should stand back and do nothing. We will not stand back and do nothing, either in this party, in this Government or in the place that I come from. We are going stand up for people, and stand by them; we are not going to stand back. The official Opposition may be led on this issue by a man with two brains, but the leaders on the issue should be people with some heart.

Adam Holloway: The importance of this debate is underlined by the OECD's economic outlook; it says that unemployment in our country could rise to 10 per cent., and it said in November that it could rise faster than in any other G7 country. Accurate and promptly published analysis of unemployment trends is important for the providers of training and further education, particularly in a recession, which is also an opportunity for reskilling. In terms of the data available to inform training providers, the jobseeker figures provided by Jobcentre Plus and the Office for National Statistics seem to vary by between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. That is concerning in itself, but when we add in the number of those who are economically inactive but who want a job, the unemployment figure in Gravesham is almost trebled.
	I wish to highlight a group of motivated adults who could not read or write but were turned away by their college of further education. They had all taken the difficult step of deciding to learn to read and write and had filled in all the forms. Some of them were motivated to do so because they wanted to start to do homework with their children, some because they wanted to expand their businesses, while others just wanted to achieve their potential. They went to their local FE college and, to its credit, they found a great class that they enjoyed, but there was a problem: the Government's policy to phase out funding on equivalent or lower qualifications. They had taken a huge step in admitting that they could not read or write, and had grasped the basics, but they wanted to do more advanced things such as write job application letters. That was deemed to be a bit too advanced to be funded, however. Indeed, the policy required members of the group to learn individually using a specially designed computer programme. The group set itself up in a local church hall, and a saint-like teacher from the local college agreed to work on a much lower rate of pay. Some of the adult learners valued what they were learning so much that they funded the course from their benefit payments. I am delighted that this community group was able to fund and deliver that learning and development, and such community-organised solutions are always refreshing, but do we want motivated people to be turned away from training?
	Another group I wish to highlight is those who are already skilled but who want to retrain for work in sectors that are offering jobs. Let me offer the examples from Gravesham of a construction worker who had a back injury and a bus driver who had suffered a stroke, which prevented them from performing manual work and driving. Both men enjoyed computing and wanted to be retrained in that field, where one could expect a motivated and qualified person to find a job. The man with the stroke was expected to recover fully over about three years and, rather than sit around on disability benefits during that period, he wanted to spend the time retraining. He faced some hurdles, however. Under the current rules, jobseekers can wait up to 18 months before they are able to take a full-time training course while claiming benefits. Nevertheless, jobcentres can help to arrange shorter training courses sooner than that. The problem is that the choice is fairly limited unless one wants training in basic English or maths, which many newly unemployed people do not need.
	I can also offer the example of a man who was a service manager in a car dealership, which is not a good organisation to be employed in right now. He therefore wants to reskill as a locksmith as he has identified a gap in the market, but he is finding it very difficult to get help to retrain to do that.
	Another problem is that any additional training can be limited to what are described as growth areas. I identified Gravesham's only growth area when making representations following a visit to 50 employees who had worked for the local branch of Woolworths. They were mainly women in their mid-40s and 50s, and a fair number of them had left school without qualifications, and had gone to work for Woolworths after raising a family. I made inquiries on their behalf at our jobcentre to determine what training they would receive, and was told that the only identified growth area was the care sector. The care sector offers good careers in Gravesham, of course, but what struck me was the idea that that was the only available option, because not everybody is suited to working in the care sector.
	Training opportunities for people should be not only rational, but flexible; they should not simply be linked to the main growth areas. We must keep the recently unemployed keen, motivated and focused and then get them back into work. The Government must do more to differentiate the recently unemployed and the long-term unemployed. Of course all unemployed people should remain on our radar, but we must avoid the recently, first-time unemployed joining the long-term unemployedtheir needs are not very subtly different. The newly unemployed need rapid training to avoid their joining the benefits-cycle club.
	In conclusion, we need more accurate data; a streamlined funding model for further education that is flexible to the needs of the local community and individuals; and rapid retraining, specifically of the recently unemployed. Finally, I would be grateful if the Minister could update me on the position of the building works at North West Kent college in Gravesend.

David Evennett: This has been an important and interesting debate on the vital subject of skills in the recession. Regrettably, Britain is in a serious recession and there is a serious skills shortage within our society. A new approach is absolutely necessary, because this Government have undoubtedly failed in their attempt to improve skills. In the main, we have had a constructive debate about the issues highlighted in our motion, and Conservative Members have presented the Government's failings in the areas of college capital funding, apprenticeships, training, skills shortages and adult education. In our motion and in a number of speeches made by my Conservative colleagues, we have put forward an alternative approach with policies designed to ensure that we have the necessary skills for the future.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) opened the debate with a characteristically analytical approach to the failings of the Secretary of State and his team, highlighting the real problems facing us, noting the failings of Labour in government and presenting our approach. My hon. Friend's excellent speech raised the concerns of colleges, employers, students, workers and adult learners. Regrettably, in his speech, the Secretary of State floundered and gave the usual Government gloss [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) laughs, but he did flounder and did give a gloss, and he was very selective in his responses. He was terribly party political, backward-looking, disappointing, faltering and unconvincing [ Interruption. ] And he enters the Chamber at this very moment. Even he did not appear to be convinced of his arguments and explanations, let alone the rest of us. Regrettably, he made wide generalisations and, as always, his contribution was rather lacking in detail. He said that the college failings should not have happened, but they didthey happened on his watch. Why was that? We heard too much history, not enough of the contemporary and not a lot for the futureit was very disappointing.
	The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, made some very good points and covered, with a broad brush, most of the points in our motion. I agreed with some of what he said, but not with all of it.

Stephen Williams: I owe the hon. Gentleman an apology, because it was of course he who spoke at the adult learners week reception last week. I had got the constituencies muddled and said that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who does so many joint events with me on such occasions, had done so. I just wanted to correct that point.

David Evennett: I am very grateful for that. There are real concerns within our society and across the country about skills, training, opportunities and employment. As has been said, in every constituency, whatever its political colour, there are real concerns for the future. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on his excellent speech, in which he gave an account of the issues facing Craven college in his constituency and small businesses in the area.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) made an excellent contribution, highlighting, in a powerful speech, the issues of further education capital funding and regeneration, and the disappointment in his constituency at the situation in which the constituency and the college find themselves. He also raised the situation of adults with learning difficulties, on which he made some effective and constructive points. May I reassure him, as he wanted Conservative Front Benchers to do, that our further education funding council will have a simple funding flow? It will be one body and it will be less bureaucratic. I hope that that provides the reassurance that he sought on that matter.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Holloway), who is my near neighbour, also made a powerful contribution, in which he spoke with real passion about his constituency, community groups, funding issues and North West Kent collegehe was obviously particularly concerned about that. I also wish to note the contributions made by Labour Members, as they also highlighted the problems in their constituencies caused by the funding situation for the colleges.
	The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) made a powerful contribution, raising serious points about what would happen if the refurbishment and redevelopment did not take place in his area and his college. The hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) talked about the economic situation and the need for smarter regulation, rather than a lack of regulation. He went on to discuss NEETs and young people with disabilities, all of which are crucial issues that we should be addressing, as we have tried to do today. I did not agree with him on local education authorities taking responsibility for 16 to 19-year-olds, as per the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill, which is going through Parliament at this time. We think that that is a retrograde step and not one that we could support. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) spoke with real passion about the issues in his area, and I listened with great interest to him.

Hugh Bayley: Even though the hon. Gentleman and I disagree on whether LEAs should take responsibility for the funding of FE colleges, does he agree that there should be a level playing field for fundingthe same amount per pupil unit for sixth-formers in schools and colleges?

David Evennett: This is an area that we need to look at. Everything has to be looked at on its merits, but we always want a fairer funding system.

David Anderson: The hon. Gentleman said that he was interested in what I had to say in my contribution, but is he interested enough to tell us whether he will commit to continue the funding of the union learning reps scheme?

David Evennett: My hon. Friend the Member for Havant has already answered that by saying that we are looking at things very sympathetically. We must move on, because the time available to us is very short.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Ham, who is a Parliamentary Private Secretary, seems to want to make a contributionshe has made more of a contribution from a sedentary position than many others.
	In the short time available I wish to concentrate on two things: NEETs and the college capital programme. Unemployment is a real tragedy and the failure of young people to be in training, education or employment is a real concern. This recession is hitting the younger people in our community even harder. The level of youth unemployment is rising and we are very concerned that it will continue to rise, with the result that there will be more people in this situation. A record number of people are not in any form of education, employment or training, as shown in the official figures. That is a tragedy for individuals, for local communities and for our country's future, thus it is so important that we look constructively at dealing with the situation.
	In the past, the UK's position on youth unemployment was a lot better than the OECD average, but I regret to say that it is deteriorating. We have heard in speeches today how much more it will deteriorateeven by the Government's own admissionin the forthcoming future. This is a disaster and it is an indictment of what the Government have failed to do in their term in office.
	The Prime Minister, long before entering No. 10, stated that youth unemployment would be one of his priorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant said, this Government always have good intentions and they are good on rhetoric, but the reality is always something quite different. That is terribly disappointing. The Association of Colleges says that existing problems include a funding system that is too slow, rules that restrict the movement of money between funding pots and an obsession with
	full level qualifications that are not appropriate in the current economic situation.
	It has also said that
	there is a major disincentive for Colleges to deliver flexible packages of training which fall outside the rules.
	Restrictions on other training providers are also causing problems. A number of training providers with tried and tested ways of helping young people engage with learning and the labour market have found that they are ineligible for public funding because they do not tick the right boxes. In some instances, they have had to halt all provision as a result. Training providers face a difficult and uncertain future due to constant internal reorganisation at the LSC and the Government's education Bill, which is going through Parliament at the moment and will create more new quangos, more bureaucracy and more ineffective delivery of facilities for training and opportunities for our young people.
	The recession will result in there not being enough jobs for people leaving school, colleges and universities. We need to support those people along with the recently unemployed, and to give them advice, perhaps access to further training and opportunities for employment and new careers, so that they are prevented from becoming long-term claimants. The Conservatives are very concerned about how we can help young people coming out of colleges and universities to get into jobs.
	Britain, regrettably, starts from a weak skills base. We hear too often how many people5 million or whateverare classed as functionally illiterate, and millions more struggle with basic literacy and numeracy. The Secretary of State scratches his head, and he might well do so, because such problems are real in today's society.  [ Interruption. ] He can make comments from a sedentary position, but people matter and there is no point in being flippant about these situations.
	We are looking to train more people. We heard that there has been a cut in adult learning places. My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) intervened and made it quite clear that it is often vital for many people to go to adult education and get some qualifications before they can go on to get further qualifications. Women returners, in particular, as well as other people, need that opportunity and focus to go into education again. The Government have cut those opportunities and we have seen the number of places dramatically reduce in the past few years.

John Hayes: By 1.4 million.

David Evennett: Yes, by 1.4 million. I will reiterate the figure yet again to highlight the catastrophe.
	Let me go on to the disaster of the capital funding for colleges. We have heard concerns today from both sides of the House that have highlighted the impact of the mismanagement of the capital programme, which has had consequences for the colleges and the young people who are learning or hoping to learn. We have heard the numbers144 colleges were going ahead with major building work and are now at a standstill, incurring, as we understand it, an average of about 1.2 million in expenses. Many colleges have spent much more.
	We welcome the report by Sir Andrew Foster for the Department. He was particularly damning of the Government's handling of the capital programme and suggested that the reorganisation of DIUS led directly to confusion and the prevailing financial problems in FE. He said that the
	the demise of the LSC and uncertainty about arrangements for the new agencies should not be underestimated.
	There is a continuing problem. It is not just about the past, but about what will happen as we go forward.
	I have been privileged enough to visit Thanet college and to have seen the problems there. There was regeneration and new building, which have been stopped. I have been to the Wellingborough, Corby and Kettering campuses to see the problems with their capital programmes. There are regeneration projects, too, as we heard from Members from both sides of the House. The college rebuilding programme and the capital programme are part of regeneration. I met some people from the college in King's Lynn in Norfolk who highlighted the problems. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) has given me more details. The college is in partnership with otherswith businesses and the local communityto regenerate the centre of King's Lynn. It cannot do that if it does not get its part of the funding. That is the reality on the ground.
	The Secretary of State is always unwilling to answer direct questions on these matters, but I want to put a couple to him. He did not answer my hon. Friend the Member for Havant on the subject of the criteria that will be set, which the Secretary of State highlighted and which will go through shortly. I want his colleague, the Under-Secretary, to respond to three points to do with the criteria. First, what are the criteria? Will regeneration be a top priority for the funding that will be available for the colleges' future? What is the chronology, and will it be the people who put in firstthose who are shovel readywho get the funding or not? What will be the effect on the other players, providers and agencies?
	Most importantly, as mentioned in a brief from the Association of Colleges, the Government must confirm what happens to the money. For example, 215 million is being spent on capital expenditure on stalled projects; 187 million will be written off in colleges' accounts if the projects do not go forward, which will put most colleges in deficit and wipe out their reserves; and there will be 269 million spent on extra costs, such as maintenance, in the next five years. There needs to be a full, fair and fast compensation scheme that we run to a clear timetable and the Government need to get a grip of thatthey should do so nowand to let us know openly what their priorities will be.
	In conclusion, because time goes so quickly

Lyn Brown: It is not going quickly over here.

David Evennett: The hon. Lady calls out again from the Parliamentary Private Secretary's Benchshe is an entertainment in herself.
	What do we really need? The capital funding programme should have fairness, transparency and clarity, and rigorous criteria should be applied to the projects awaiting approval. On apprenticeships, we need an expansion of real, work-based programmes. We must make it easier for companies to mix apprenticeships by cutting excessive paperwork, instituting direct payment to employers and injecting support for apprentices of all ages, delivered through lifelong learning accounts. We need more community learning and employability, and to provide funds specifically for NEETs, targeting help to those most in need after leaving school. We also need investment in an adult and community learning fund for much-needed courses to help people to update their skills or to gain new skills. We need to set FE colleges free from the bureaucracy of the LSC and its planned successors. We need a revolution to improve the careers service, which is, at present, inadequate. In too many areas, the focus is just on universities. Funds should be refocused from the current provision to provide a new all-age service and to set up a new web-based skills matching service.
	The Government have failed to deliver the skills, training and education needed if the economy is to emerge stronger from the recession. The Secretary of State and his team have neither the vision nor the constructive policies to deal with the situation.

Si�n Simon: This has been an interesting, serious, and slightly sombre debate. There has not been a lot of levity. The most that I can recall is the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams) telling us about his leg waxing and

Stephen Williams: Non-leg waxing.

Si�n Simon: About his non-leg waxing and tonsorial treatments at his local FE college. Amusing though that was, he went on to make the point, My local FE college even does accountancy. That was a good point, well made. People can do more at an FE college now than was traditionally the case. I recently went to Matthew Boulton college in Birmingham city centre. It is a fantastic college that was built four years ago but is still a state-of-the-art beacon of what can be doneand of what we have done all over this country, as we have built new FE colleges to allow vocational learners to do all kinds of training. At Matthew Boulton, students can do not only accountancy but dentistry, too. There are mini operating theatres and a state-of-the-art broadband wireless fitting thing on which all the Sky installation engineers in the country are trained. That is what one can do in an FE college these days, and that is what people are doing, up and down the land, in the colleges that we have built and that we are continuing to build.
	However, having said that, there has been a serious problem in the future funding for the FE colleges that we plan to build. The hon. Member for Bristol, West began the debate on that subject by talking about the numbers of colleges involved in the current difficulties. It was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and a couple of other Members, and I shall come back to it.
	Before I mention the capital, which is the next issue that I shall deal with, I want to mention the thrust of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson). He spoke with great passion, and from experience, about the union learning fund, its representatives, what they do and achieve, and how important they are. The Secretary of State mentioned them in his opening speech, and said that he had recently been to a union learning facility in his constituency. A week or two before I was appointed to my current job, I visited a union learning facility in my constituency.
	It is notable that the shadow Secretary of State did not mention union learning in his speech, and his party's lengthy documents never mention it. He intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon to say that he had recently had a meeting with the Trades Union Congress, at which his attitude had been sympathetic. I have to say that to those of us on the Labour Benches it seemed more pathetic than sympathetic that he would not guarantee the 21.5 million that we invest in that learning. There was even a parliamentary question tabled by an hon. Member from his party about unionlearn, the thrust of which was, Why are we spending public money funding people to learn about how to be trade unionists? As hon. Members will know, that is not what unionlearn is about. It is about union representatives in the workplace signposting and directing into learning workers who otherwise would not get there. It is a great programme, and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon does great work by bringing it up.
	I have a feeling that in the time available to me, I might not get very much further than the subject of capital. The hon. Member for Bristol, West, talked about the number of colleges affected by the current problem. There are 144 colleges directly affected; 79 have already received approval in principle, and a further 65 have submitted their applications in principle but have not yet received approval. As I have said on many occasions in this House and elsewhere, and to many college principals whom I have met, many other colleges will have invested time, money in some cases, and certainly energy and commitment in drawing up putative plans for future investment, but will not yet have submitted their papers. We are, and have always been, consciousI have said this many times in the Housethat in addition to the 144 colleges mentioned, another subset of colleges is affected in a real but lesser way. The 144 colleges mentioned are those that are directly involved in the current scheme.

John Hayes: The Minister is indeed giving a less pugnacious summing-up than he did on a previous occasion, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) recommended he should. The Minister must by now have come to a conclusion about what that extra number is. It is inconceivable that the civil servants working with him would not have come up with a figure. How many colleges are we talking about? Is it 160, 180 or 200? He must know; it is time that he came clean.

Si�n Simon: I was about to deal with the pugnacious slur, but then I found myself wanting to respond that if the hon. Gentleman had the slightest understanding of the issue, he could not possibly ask such a daft question. Of course we could not possibly put a figure on the number of people who may have been thinking about applying to have a new college in future.
	Moving on to the serious points made on the issue, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) asked about the timetable. Again, we have gone through that subject on several occasions. The Learning and Skills Council has convened a panel of college principals, which has met and is looking into the issue. The LSC will write to college principals shortly, letting them know what the prioritisation criteria will be. Subject to the publication of those criteria, decisions will be made very quickly about which colleges can go forward with the work. My hon. Friend suggested that that might be done not in one hit, but in a two-stage process. He suggested that in the first instance, a larger number of colleges would be deemed to have met the criteria, and then a value for money process would be undergone before there was a second phase, in which a final, formal allocation was made. As far as I am aware, the LSC has not made that decision yet, although I am aware that it has been having discussions of that nature. The fundamental point remains that it and we have committed to giving firm answers to colleges about the first tranche, or this year's tranche, of funding by the early summerthat is, imminently.
	The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who I see is in the Chamber, mentioned regional LSC staff. I want to take this opportunity to agree with him: all the college principals I meetand I meet dozens and dozens of them to talk about the issuemake it clear, time and again, that the regional LSC staff with whom they deal are doing a good job. They have no problems with those staff at all. This is a good opportunity to congratulate regional LSC staff from the Dispatch Box on the work that they do in a committed and successful way.
	The right hon. Gentleman talked about Craven college and the importance of the rural. He has mentioned that issue before. I have spoken to principals who were on the reference panel that drew up the criteria. One principal of a land-based college assured me that he had raised the issue, that it had been considered by the reference panel, and that it would go forward and influence the decision on the criteria that college principals come up with.
	My hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) made the case for his local colleges, at least two of which I have visited; both are, as he says, extraordinary. He made slightly mistaken use of the word cuts when talking about his early-day motion. I hope it does not say cuts in his early-day motion; we should be clear that we were going to spend 2.3 billion on college capital this year anyway, and we are now going to spend 2.6 billion.
	The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who I see is in the Chamber, and who bizarrely said that I was pugnacious in the Westminster Hall debate, asked whether the schemes that do not go ahead in the current tranche will go to the back of the queue. It is important for people to understand that that is not the case. There will be two processes, one of which starts now; the gateway criterion for that process is shovel readiness, if I may use that phrase. There will then be a second process, using the same criteria that were drawn up in the first process except that of shovel readiness. Through that second process, the second set of colleges will be put through. It is not a question of those colleges going to the back of the queue; they will effectively be dealt with in the same way as the first lot, but more slowly and later.
	I do not have time to deal with apprenticeships or NEETs, or the many other issues that hon. Members raised. All that I would say in conclusion is that I hope today's debate has caused the hon. Member for Havant to reconsider his calls for cuts in the skills budget, and caused him to recognise, as we do, that skills are the bedrock of our economic future. Neither issueneither skills nor our economic futurecan be trusted to the Tories.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	 The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 277.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	 Question agreed to.
	 The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
	 Resolved,
	That this House notes the Government's belief that in a recession it is important to give people the skills they and their employers need to recover from the downturn; commends this year's Budget for investing 1.2 billion in creating jobs and providing training to young people who have been unemployed for 12 months; further notes that there are now more 18 to 24 year-olds working or engaged in full-time education compared to 1997; commends the Government for its sustained investment in skills with record numbers of people now receiving training, far more than was originally planned for this year; further commends the Government for spending over 5 billion on adult skills this year, helping three million learners, and for increasing investment in higher education by 24 per cent. in real terms since 1997; further notes that the Government is prioritising helping people to gain employability skills; further notes that the Train to Gain budget has risen to 925 million this year; further notes the budget for apprenticeships is over 1 billion this year and that there are 250,000 starts planned; commends the Government for confirming that no current learner will lack the funds to complete their course; further notes that this Government is spending 2.6 billion on further education capital projects over this spending review period; and further notes that Sir Andrew Foster has recently produced an independent review of the Building Colleges for the Future programme.

Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I advise the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Andrew Lansley: I beg to move,
	That this House calls for an independent inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 into the failings of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust.
	I understand that the Secretary of State is with the World Health Organisation in Geneva. He spoke to me last week about that. We entirely accept that that is the proper thing for him to do, so I welcome the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) to move the amendment and speak on behalf of the Government.
	This morning I visited Stafford again, the fourth time that I have done so in two months. I wanted to make sure that I had had an opportunity to talk with those who have been most closely concerned with the failings in care identified at Stafford general hospital, and with efforts to ensure that lessons have been learned. I wanted to discuss with them their view of the reviews published at the end of April by Professor Sir George Alberti and Dr. David Colin-Thom on behalf of the Department of Health.
	The conclusion reached by those to whom I spoke, by us and by many Members across the House who know most about these issues is that those reports to the Department of Health were not independent, were not sufficient, and did not go beyond a superficial examination, in Dr. Colin-Thom's case, of the role of external agencies. In Professor Sir George Alberti's case, the report was no more than a snapshot of what is happening in relation to Stafford general hospital.
	In sum, the reports do not go beyond the Healthcare Commission investigation and report to set out clearly, for the benefit of the public in Staffordshire and south Staffordshire, not only what happened, but why it happened and why the organisations and the senior executives in the health service who were charged with managing the trust's performance, with monitoring and performance-managing the trust at a senior level, and with its performance assessment failed in their task of ensuring that the lamentable failings in the standards of care at the trust were identified earlier and stopped.

Lembit �pik: Although I very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said so far, he said that the people of Staffordshire would be concerned about the matter. Is he aware, as my constituent Trudy Hill has pointed out, that the gravitas of it is exacerbated by the fact that it was of national importance? Many of my constituents from Montgomeryshire also depended on the services of Staffordshire, especially the specialist services. I imagine that the large turnout for the debate reflects both the hon. Gentleman's concerns and those of people in a radius of well over 100 miles of the trust.

Andrew Lansley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I should have referred not only to south Staffordshire, because, of course, the issue goes further. Indeed, the issues under discussion range widely: many people, wherever they live, were shocked by what they read in the Healthcare Commission's report and wanted to know not just what happened but why it happened; and people in the hospital knew what was happening but were not listened to when they tried to do something about it, or they did not have an opportunity to do so.

Michael Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Andrew Lansley: If I may, let me just make this point. The Government promised an oral statement on the two reviews that were published on 13 April, and I wish not that we had had to table this motion, but that the Government had made an oral statement and accepted that the reviews did not answer the questions before us, and that the Secretary of State had come to the House and said that he was going to institute a public inquiry on the terms we seek. I am sorry that we have had to move the motion, but it now seems to be necessary.

Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend accept that people in Staffordshire who have been personally affected by the matter ask for an inquiry, which needs to be independent, not to apportion blame, but to ensure that something like this can never happen againnot just in Staffordshire hospitals but in other hospitals? Rightly or wrongly, they believe that if the inquiry is not independent, it will be a whitewash.

Andrew Lansley: I understand exactly what my hon. Friend says, and he knows the matter very well through his constituency and his constituents who visit Staffordshire general hospital and those who, no doubt, work there. His point is right, because Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, visited Staffordshire general a few weeks ago and met nurses from throughout the hospital. He told me that the RCN itself now wants a public inquiry. Although it represents the largest group of staff employed at the hospital, it does not consider a public inquiry being for one minute a distraction or diversion from the delivery of the best quality of care in that hospital. From its point of view, finding out not only what happened but why, and learning those lessons for the future at Staffordshire general and in the wider NHS community, is absolutely vital. The RCN was quite right to make that point.

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend knows, because I have told him, that my mother died at Staffordshire general hospital just over 15 years ago. She received fantastic treatment and care at the hospital, and, importantly, many people who have worked there for a very long time and dedicated their lives to giving public service to the health service are, whether we like it or not, blighted by that period. For their sake as well as the sakes of the people who rightly feel most aggrieved, a public inquiry must take place.

Andrew Lansley: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. I hope that he and Members from all parts of the House will understand that I bow to no one in my support for national health service staff, for what they do and for how they do it. However, they, like anyone, know that the performance and failings of organisations are often systemic rather than personal. We therefore want not only to identify personal responsibility on the part of senior executives, a point to which I shall return, but to understand the systemic problems that meant that good staff, trying to do their best, found that they were unable to do so, because of either staffing and financial decisions, or a lack of performance management and scrutiny by other organisations.
	My right hon. Friend makes an important point. One clear example of what the published reviews lack is that Dr. Colin-Thom, in his report, addressed three recommendations to the Department of Health, as though the Department has serious responsibilities to ensure that the system must change, but no part of it to whether the Department, in the past, took its responsibilities seriously and discharged them. It is as if the Department did not exist before nowthat, somehow, it is the solution for the future but did nothing in the past. The Department, however, did a great deal in the past that may have contributed directly to the matter.

William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Andrew Lansley: I shall of course give way in a second, but let me clarify what I mean. For example, it is abundantly clear that strategic health authorities and primary care trusts, whatever their failings, were significantly damaged by NHS reorganisations and the utter chaos that flowed from them. The Department and the previous Secretary of State were directly responsible for sending the foundation trust's application to Monitor, but, in Dr. Colin-Thom's report, there was no evidence of the scrutiny that should have been applied, or any reason why it was not. The appointment to SHAs and PCTs of senior staff, and their performance, is a responsibility of the Department, but that was not discharged. Indeed, I shall come on to the central issue of targets and the responsibility of the Department.

William Cash: My hon. Friend quite rightly refers to the past and its connection with the present. He will also be aware that the current NHS chief executive is David Nicholson, who, at the critical time, was chief executive of Shropshire and Staffordshire strategic health authority and West Midlands South strategic health authority, and that there is a direct connection between those two matters.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who understands these matters extremely well. He is right about that, but let me anticipate what I was in any case going to say. Dr. Colin-Thom points out how the SHA and the PCT failed to meet their responsibilities, saying that the
	PCTs past and present and SHAs past and present do not appear to have taken notice of signs that were present in the survey data and in complaints that indicated poor patient care.
	Evidence of poor care has emerged that was not collated or challenged by the PCTs or SHAs at the time.
	We know from the Healthcare Commission's report that clinical governance issues that were raised in 2002, and on which its predecessor organisations commented adversely, were exactly the same in 2008. Up until the trust became a foundation trust, the SHAs were responsible for the scrutiny of its performance, and they, in particular, clearly failed to address themselves to the quality of care that the trust providedto the point at which, in March 2008, when the SHA board received the university of Birmingham's report on data, it said that
	there appeared to be nothing to indicate that anything out of the ordinary was taking place on mortality.
	There was a woeful failure on the part of the SHA and the PCT. Notwithstanding the fact that Dr. Colin-Thom makes it clear that there was such a failure, there is no indication in his review of who was responsible. On the issue of who was responsible, we are talking about David Nicholson, for about a year, who is now chief executive of the NHS, and Cynthia Bowers, subsequently, who is now chief executive of the Care Quality Commission. Standing at the Dispatch Box, I do not know whether I can say that they were directlypersonallyresponsible for those failings in a way that should be substantively criticised; I do know, however, that the motion is not about criticising any individual, but about establishing a public inquiry. However, I do not want anyone to think that, by calling for an inquiry, we have neglected the fact that the proper purpose of such a public inquiry is to find out whether two of the most senior people in the NHS, with responsibility for its services, have shown that they are credible or capable of such responsibility.

William Cash: The minutes, which I have with me, will demonstrate some of the connections to which my hon. Friend refers.

Andrew Lansley: Yes. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend if he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I know that other colleagues across the House want to contribute, so I shall try to be quick. I want to illustrate further why I feel that the reviews thus far have not answered the questions that must be answered. In his report, Dr. Colin-Thom says:
	I feel very strongly that a lack of good patient engagement is the key to why Mid Staffordshire hospital trust continued to provide poor care for a protracted period of time.
	That may well be true, but is there any analysis that goes beyond that? Is there any analysis of how the Government, through the abolition of community health councils and the emasculation of patients' forums, led to a reduction of patient engagement in a way that was a tragic failure? Is there any examination of how foundation trusts are engaging or failing to engage with the public?
	The many of us who represent foundation trusts believed that they should be a mechanism for engaging the public, as members of the trusts, more effectively. Clearly, that mechanism failed in this case, but Dr. Colin-Thom gives us no sense of that. Frankly, all we have from him is what seems to be no more than a bland expression of hope that local involvement networks, or LINks, which were set up by the Department under recent legislation, will somehow be better at all thiswithout independent powers to investigate, follow up complaints or act as an advocate. In his report Dr. Colin-Thom seems to think that LINks will be useful, but he did not meet LINks representatives in Stafford, so it is all pure pie in the sky.

John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that the investigation would be of considerable importance to the whole country? In my constituency, we face the imposition of a new system that will rip proper, emergency heart care from Ipswich hospital without there having been any discussion whatever. My constituents are left having to go from Leiston to Papworth if they are to have emergency treatment. Such a situation arises if there is no discussion with patients and no concern for them. We need the investigation not just for Staffordshire, but for the whole country.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. As he knows, I have visited Ipswich hospital to discuss the removal of its maxillofacial treatment services. I am aware of what my right hon. Friend has described. If he and other colleagues permit me, I will make it my business to visit Ipswich hospital to discuss the issue with its representatives. The services that patients would receive at Papworth hospital would be among the finest anywhere in the world, as it is in my constituency. However, that is not to say that we do not believe that such services should be provided in more accessible locations if they can be and if they are of good quality.

Norman Lamb: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern at the apparent drift towards more secrecy for board meetings at foundation trusts? More and more foundation trusts are routinely excluding the public and hospital governors. That is a trend in the wrong direction; there should be more openness and more accountability.

Andrew Lansley: I do share that concern. In that context, I should like to make another important point on which a public inquiry would further add to our knowledge. Just before the Healthcare Commission report was published, Martin Yeates, then chief executive of Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, stepped downthat, apparently is a term of art. After the commission's report was published, the board took the view that he should be suspended. It instituted an investigation by Peter Garland, a senior former NHS chief executive. Apparently, Mr. Garland has reported to the trust board and told its members the extent to which he believes Mr. Yeates met or did not meet his duties to the board and the trust. That report, however, has not been published and, as I understand it, the trust board does not intend to publish it.
	Yet on Friday afternoonwe all know what happens to Friday afternoon press releasesthe board announced that Mr. Martin Yeates had tendered his resignation, which the board had accepted. As a consequence, Mr. Yeates will receive his notice period; in addition to his two months' pay on gardening leave, he will get six months' pay. He has effectively been put beyond the scope of disciplinary action, unless a breach of duty can be demonstrated. Clearly, that will not happen unless all the evidence is brought out in a public inquiry. I am not accusing Mr. Yeates of anything, but we are not being given access to any of the information on which a judgment can be based.
	I turn to another important point, to which Dr. Colin-Thom referred. It is about complaints. Again, Dr. Colin-Thom did not put forward any suggestion about what should be done. All he said was that the Government's reform of the complaints system in recent legislation will somehow make things better. There is no evidence to suggest that. On the contrary, there is the idea that the new Care Quality Commission will not have a responsibility in the scrutiny of second-stage complaints; that will disappear off to the ombudsman. That undermines further, as compared with the past, the ability of Care Quality Commission performance assessment to be combined with intimate knowledge of what is happening inside a trust.
	Frankly, there are already questions about the extent to which the Healthcare Commission acted; second-stage complaints should have been getting to it, but they were not. Where were the complaints going? That is the interesting question. The Healthcare Commission report says that some of them were going to strategic health authorities, others to the National Patient Safety Agency and some to the Healthcare Commission itselfthere was no rhyme or reason about it. The system in relation to the complaints is dysfunctional, and the Healthcare Commission, which most needed to knowits statutory responsibility is to investigate when patients' quality of care is being compromiseddid not know. If it did, we need to understand to what extent it was acting on the complaints.
	Individual complaints were investigated by the commission; one has come to me. The commission concluded that there had been gross professional negligence and demanded that Staffordshire hospital prepare an action plan in response within five weeks. That happened in October 2008, but did the commission get such a response? Not at allthere was no response. Even as recently as the early part of this year, Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust was failing to respond to serious conclusions drawn by the Healthcare Commission. That is another reason why it seems to us that the Healthcare Commission was not by any means the last word.
	I said that I would also refer to targets. When the Healthcare Commission's report was published, the Minister said that the issue had nothing to do with targets. Will he accept that, as Dr. Colin-Thom makes clear in his report:
	A key lesson is that all organisations should be focused on prioritising high quality patient care as judged by outcomes, and whilst process targets are very helpful on the journey, they must not become a distraction from the bigger picture?
	What have we been doing for the past two years? We have been talking endlessly about the importance of focusing on outcomes rather than targets. What have Ministers been doing? They have been talking about the desirability of using targets as the be-all and end-all. Even now, as the new Health Bill is discussed in another place, there is a view that emergency services are measured sufficiently by simple reference to whether the four-hour A and E target is adhered to or not. That ignores the enormous spike when people are discharged from accident and emergency departments after three hours and 59 minutes. Furthermore, the Healthcare Commission report makes it clear that patients were being discharged elsewhere rather than getting the treatment that they needed at the time they needed it in the emergency department.
	One of the questions that must be resolved is why staff in the hospital who raised these matters did not get anything done about it, and why others did not blow the whistle when they should have done. I find no evidence in what Dr. Colin-Thom has reported, or in what Sir George Alberti has written, to explain that. Dr. Colin-Thom simply says that it happenedhe does not know why. As I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will agree, the starting point in finding out what really happened, and why, is to ensure that people at the trustsome of whom, until very recently, felt too intimidated to speak outfeel that they have the protection of giving evidence to a public inquiry under oath, with all the statutory powers that go with that. We have proposals for improving whistleblowing. The Government should have the humility to recognise that nobody contacted Public Concern at Work and nothing was done to bring forward into the public domain the concerns that were clearly held by staff at the trust.

Norman Lamb: The hon. Gentleman raises concerns about a bullying culture. There is also the issue of the duty, or responsibility, of the clinicians themselves. It appears that some clinicians ultimately failed to meet that duty by reporting the serious concerns that they must have had. Does not that also need to be addressed, because someone needs to be held to account in terms of clinical behaviour?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, it does. It may be excessive to expect that even a public inquiry would be able to identify, in all cases, where and to what extent that had happened. However, if a review of case notes gives rise to serious concerns about a significant number of cases, at least a public inquiry would provide a mechanism in the round to consider what that tells us about the clinical governance that was being undertaken and how it may need to be reformed in future.
	I want to make a specific point about what has not been achieved by these reviews. For several years, the Government have had the National Patient Safety Agency. One of its principal tasks involves the national reporting and learning system, which should in itself give rise to alerts about the compromise of patient care and errors and inefficiencies. I have failed to see any evidence anywhere in the reviews that the National Patient Safety Agency exists, let alone that it has done anything. If a public inquiry were to look into failings of policy, and needs for the future, that would clearly be one of them.
	I hope that, in the course of the past few minutes, I have made it clear that the questions about why Stafford hospital failed its patients in emergency services and admissions, as identified in the Healthcare Commission report, have not been answered, and why a public inquiry is therefore needed. The reports thus far have not given the public in Staffordshire a voice, and they have not provided a public opportunity, with protection, for evidence to be taken. The reports were not independent, and they have failed to investigate the direct role of the Department of Health and its policies. Until recently, both the authors were civil servants in the Department of Health: they are not independent, and we should not see them as such. Neither report contained critical scrutiny of the impact of targets. There was no critical examination of the role of the chief executives of the strategic health authorities over the period in question. There was no discussion of the roles of the national reporting and learning system or of the National Patient Safety Agency. There was no discussion of how the complaints processes have worked or how patient engagement has worked, and no substantive proposals about how they can be reformed in future, as they clearly must be. Instead of robust criticism, all we have is a bureaucratic process. Dr. Colin-Thom's report, in particular, suggests that the things that the Government were already planning to do, such as practice-based commissioning, world-class commissioning and LINks, will somehow solve everything. There is no evidence that that will happenfar from it. Indeed, some initiatives, such as practice-based commissioning and LINks, are stalling rather than making the progress that they should.
	Because of all that, the reports do not shed light on why those in the hospital and elsewhere failed to stop the tragic events that have killed, or caused avoidable deaths among perhaps hundreds of patients, with all the distress that that has meant for their families. I again pay tribute to Julie Bailey and all her colleagues at the Cure the NHS campaign, who persisted when the situation was very difficult and it took courage to do so in the face of a bureaucracy that was determined that they would not expose what was happening at Stafford hospital. They want an inquiry now, and say that only when we know why and how this happened will the commitment to say Never again truly be credible. Ministers have been to see them and have promised to think again, but I do not see the evidence that they have done so. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament to require them to think again, and I commend the motion to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the Minister of State, I should remind the House, because it has not been stated on the Annunciator for other reasons, that there is a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. After the end of the Front-Bench speeches, that might have to be adjusted in a downward direction.

Ben Bradshaw: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from House to the end of the Question and add:
	notes the independent report by the Healthcare Commission which identified severe failings at the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and the follow-up reports by the National Clinical Director for Emergency Care and the National Clinical Director for Primary Care which state that Stafford Hospital's accident and emergency department is now safe but that further improvements must be made at the Trust and lessons learnt by the whole NHS; further notes that the hospital has offered independent reviews of clinical records to all concerned; agrees that at the present time it would not be appropriate to establish an independent public inquiry; further agrees that management and staff at the hospital must remain focused on delivering high quality patient care; and further agrees that an independent public inquiry could add undue delay to implementing the recommendations of the above reports and therefore to the hospital delivering high quality and safe services for the local community .
	I am grateful for the shadow Health Secretary's understanding of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cannot be with us this evening because of the assembly of the World Health Organisation.
	On 17 March 2009, the Healthcare Commission, then the independent health regulator, published its report into the failings in emergency care at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust between 2005 and mid-2008. It was a catalogue of appalling management and failures at every level, for which the Secretary of State apologised unreservedly on behalf of the Government and the NHS in his statement to the House the next day.
	The Government immediately announced a range of measures, including two swift reviews of the circumstances at Stafford hospital, to be led by Professor Sir George Alberti, the national clinical director for emergency care, and Dr. David Colin-Thom, the national clinical director for primary care. Professor Alberti looked into the hospital's current procedures for emergency admissions and treatment, and its progress against the recommendations in the Healthcare Commission's report, while Dr. Colin-Thom looked into the circumstances surrounding the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust prior to the Healthcare Commission's investigation to learn lessons about how the primary care trust and strategic health authority, within the commissioning and performance management systems that they operated, had failed to expose what was happening at the hospital. Copies of those reports were placed in the Library on 30 April, as was the Government's response.
	I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about the lack of an oral statement. He will know that providing an oral statement is not in the gift of an individual Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has gone out of his way to keep the House informed, but it is up to the business managers. The hon. Gentleman may also recall that on that day Members were discussing MPs' expenses at some length. I personally would have very much welcomed the opportunity for an oral statement to be made, but it was not agreed to by the business managers.

William Cash: The Minister knows very well that I had a personal conversation with the Secretary of State where he clearly understood that an oral statement was to be given. Furthermore, just before business questions a week last Thursday, I received a letter from the Leader of the House saying, in effect, that she apologised for the fact that an oral statement had not been given because the matter had already been dealt with by a ministerial written statement. The Minister is being disingenuous, to put it mildly.

Ben Bradshaw: The facts as the hon. Gentleman states them are not correct. The Secretary of State wanted to deliver an oral statement, as he made absolutely clear when he made the original oral statement. The hon. Gentleman has been long enough in this House to know that oral statements are not in the gift of an individual Secretary of State.

William Cash: rose

Ben Bradshaw: I will not give way again now. I will do so later to the hon. Gentleman, who has had much opportunity to raise the issue in the House, of which he has not always taken advantage.

David Kidney: I would like to move on to the big issue of an inquiry. I want to discuss some elements of the amendment, which states that there should not be an inquiry at this time. Is my hon. Friend willing to start talking to those with an interestme, other Staffordshire Members of Parliament, Opposition partiesabout the form and terms of reference of an inquiry in the near future?

Ben Bradshaw: As my hon. Friend knows from the many discussions that the Secretary of State and I have held with him, we are always open and willing to discuss any ideas that he has, but I shall address the specific matter of a public inquiry at some length later.
	The Government accepted all the recommendations of both reports and have begun to implement them in full. In summary, the reports found that, first, significant improvements had already been made at Stafford hospital. Services in accident and emergency were now safe, but there was an urgent need to make further improvements to other services and to rebuild local confidence in the trust. Secondly, in the past, patients' views were not taken seriously enough and were too easily dismissed. Thirdly, there was a lamentable failure of clinical leadership in the trust and the wider health community. Fourthly, the commissioners of local health services were not sufficiently aware of the poor-quality care in the hospital or active in addressing it. Fifthly, all parts of the system should have worked together better in the interests of patients.
	Some have attempted to suggest that what happened at Stafford hospital is typical of the NHS as a whole, or was a result of targets or some other national policy. It is important to recognise, not least because of the fantastic job that NHS staff do in hospitals throughout the country, that the Healthcare Commission and the two subsequent reports found that what happened at Stafford hospital was the result of catastrophic local failure. Every NHS nurse, doctor and manager in the country to whom I have spoken is as horrified by events there as we all are.
	The onus must, therefore, be first and foremost on Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, together with its local partners and South Staffordshire primary care trust, to address the recommendations relevant to them in the reports, make further improvements in the quality of care and rebuild local confidence.

Charlotte Atkins: Does the Minister have confidence in the procedure that Monitor adopted to secure foundation status for Stafford hospital? What worried me when Bill Moyes appeared before the Health Committee was that he talked about looking at press reports in future to get intelligence about hospitals. I would have hoped that the investigation would be much more robust. I am concerned about what that means for the process that University hospital of North Staffordshire may undergo soon. It, too, wants foundation status.

Ben Bradshaw: As my hon. Friend knows, Monitor has changed and made more robust its process for assessing candidates for foundation trust status. Even at the time, it considered quality of care. As she knows, the Healthcare Commission's announcement of a formal investigation came after foundation trust status had been granted to Stafford hospital. However, I will raise her concerns with Bill Moyes on her behalf, and I trust that she will do so about University hospital of North Staffordshire.
	We all understand the need for the relatives of patients who died at Stafford hospital to know whether there is any suggestion that death was attributable to the poor care described in the Healthcare Commission's report. The primary care trust has a widely publicised confidential helpline, on which concerned relatives can request a thorough and independent review of the clinical records of the patient in question.
	The coroner in South Staffordshire, who was also mentioned in the Healthcare Commission report, has said that he will consider any requests for an inquest from the relatives of patients who died at Stafford hospital.

Norman Lamb: It is encouraging to hear about the coroner's change of heart, but is not a change to legislation required to ensure that, in future, there is no refusal to co-operate with an inquiry, as happened in this case?

Ben Bradshaw: The coroner disputes that allegationI simply point that out to the hon. Gentleman. The coroner does not accept that version of events. The hon. Gentleman knows that a measure is currently being considered in Parliament, which addresses some of the issues that he raises.
	The reports of both Dr. David Colin-Thom and the Healthcare Commission were highly critical of the closed culture that operated at Stafford hospital. All NHS organisations must ensure that they operate in accordance with the current guidance, which promotes openness, transparency and accountability to their local populations. That includes boards holding meetings in public. The new board of the hospital now holds its quarterly meetings in public.
	It is clear from the reports that complaints were not tackled satisfactorily at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. The high number of upheld complaints was one of the things that first worried the Healthcare Commission. As of 1 April this year, we have reformed and strengthened the NHS complaints system. Hospitals need to do better at resolving complaints locally. The independent parliamentary and health service ombudsman remains the ultimate arbiter on patient complaints. Information on complaints is already available from the Care Quality Commission, the ombudsman and the NHS information centre [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) is chatting. When he talked about complaints, he referred only to the content of the reports; he did not mention the series of actions that the Government announced to address them at the same time as the reports were published. I am explaining that to him now, if he has the courtesy to listen.
	We are discussing with the health ombudsman publishing the number of complaints from each trust referred to and upheld by her. All that information will be placed on the NHS Choices website, allowing easier comparisons between hospitals.

Joan Walley: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments about examining local improvements that need to be made. I have read the two reports and I welcome the fact that, in three months, the PCT, Monitor and the Healthcare Commission will examine the way in which local services have improved. Does he share my concern that, although that covers examining local improvements, in the fullness of time we need a full inquiry to consider systemic problems on a national basis so that we can all learn from a tragic incident that involves many people? We need to ensure that we learn from that, not only in one local area but throughout the country.

Ben Bradshaw: I have sympathy with my hon. Friend's comments about the importance of going back and ensuring that Stafford hospital has acted on the recommendations of the Healthcare Commission report and the other two reports. However, she knows that the independent regulator's report and the others stated that they were satisfied that the problems in Stafford hospital were not systemic in the NHS as a whole. To claim that would be a great mistake and do a great disservice to NHS staff throughout the countrythe vast majority of hospitals manage to hit the A and E four-hour waiting target and deliver high-quality and safe care to their patients every day. We have ascertained the lessons to be learned for the rest of the service from the Healthcare Commission report and the other reports, and they are already being implemented. However, I do not believe that the Opposition and some other hon. Members are calling for an inquiry into that. They want an inquiry into the specific circumstances at Stafford hospital and I shall shortly cover why that would not necessarily be sensible at this stage.

John Gummer: Will the Minister help me and explain to my constituents how we can believe in the new attitude to complaints when my people have been told that the minimum time for a journey from their home to emergency heart operations is 160 minutes? My constituents complained before the changes were made, yet it has been announced that there is no need for public consultation on the changes. The Minister must accept that we need a report on the subject that we are considering to raise the bigger problem throughout the country that complaints are not being heededeither after changes are made or before they are implemented. Strategic health authorities currently issue a diktat. He must understand that complaints must be listened to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The interventions are getting a little long and we have a limited time for hon. Members who wish to speak on the subject from the Back Benches.

Ben Bradshaw: I shall take your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and be a little more conservative in my tolerance of interventions.
	The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) confuses complaints about individual poor care with service changes. I think that he referred to a proposed service change by his local hospital or PCT. I am sure that he knows that there is a robust and formal consultation process for such a change. One of the most effective things he can do is persuade his localprobably Conservativecouncillors, who dominate the overview and scrutiny committee in his area

John Gummer: No.

Ben Bradshaw: Is not Suffolk county council a Conservative authority? The councillors can raise concerns and refer a major service change, with which the right hon. Gentleman is unhappy, to an independent national panel.
	Another thing that alerted the Healthcare Commission to potential problems at Stafford hospital was its very poor performance in the annual NHS staff survey. The question of whether staff would be happy to be treated in the hospital where they worked was dropped by the Healthcare Commission in 2007 because of concerns that its wording could lead to distorted results for some providers.

Andrew Lansley: Rubbish.

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman, again from a sedentary position, says, Rubbish. The Healthcare Commissionthe independent regulatormade that decision because of the danger that if, for example, those working in a psychiatric hospital were asked whether they would like to be treated in their hospital, a lot would obviously say no. We have agreed with the Care Quality Commission to reintroduce the question asking staff how they rate the quality of care in their hospitals, albeit avoiding the problematic wording of the question contained in the earlier survey.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman said the decision was taken by the independent health regulator, but will he confirm that the decision to drop the questionnot the decision to reform itwas made in direct consultation with his Department?

Ben Bradshaw: No, the survey belongs to the independent regulator. The regulator consulted the Department and, for the reasons that I have explained to the hon. Gentleman, we accepted its concern that the wording could distort the responses of those working in psychiatric hospitals, in mental health and so on.
	The hon. Gentleman also talked about whistleblowing. Although the board at Mid Staffordshire did not listen to the concerns of patients or staff, we share his surprise that more professionals in the trust did not put their concerns on the record. The NHS exists to meet the needs of patients. Individual members of staff have a rightindeed, a dutyto raise any concerns that they may have about the quality of patient care with their employer. It is important to remind all staff who work in the NHS and their managers that whistleblowers have full protection under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. Furthermore, the new NHS constitution includes an explicit right for staff who report wrongdoing to be protected.
	Let me deal with the central issue of the Opposition motion, which is the call for a public inquiry. Public inquiries can be an important mechanism to establish independently the cause of a problem or disaster. I can understand that there are many who consider that a public inquiry into the events at Mid Staffordshire is both appropriate and necessary. A number of people have recalled the Bristol heart babies inquiry. In our view the critical difference is that that inquiry was initiated when, under the previous Conservative Government, there was no independent watchdog or regulator for the NHS.
	The whole point of establishing the Commission for Health Improvement in 2000 and the subsequent regulators since was to provide the public with the confidence that any concerns that they might have about NHS care in their areas would be properly and independently investigated. I have not heard any criticism of the Healthcare Commission's investigation or any suggestions that it did not get to the bottom of what went wrong at Stafford hospital. Given that, as well as the two subsequent inquiries and the action flowing from them, the Government remain unconvinced at this time that a public inquiry would add anything to our understanding of what went wrong or of what needs to be done to prevent such terrible events from happening again.

Norman Lamb: Will the Minister give way?

Ben Bradshaw: I will give way in a second. I have been very generous in giving way; the hon. Gentleman does not need to nag me to give way.
	I would also remind hon. Members that public inquiries take a long time. The Bristol inquiry took three years and the Shipman inquiry took five. We have concerns that, as well as not adding to the sum of our knowledge of what happened at Stafford hospital, a public inquiry could distract the new management and the staff at the hospital from focusing on further improving the quality of care for local people.

Norman Lamb: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and apologise for nagging him. The Government's amendment says that an inquiry would not be appropriate at the present time. Earlier in his speech he said that an inquiry would not be appropriate at this stage. He seems to be leaving the door open. Is that the case and will he consider further representations about the possibility of establishing a public inquiry?

Ben Bradshaw: As I hope the Secretary of State and I have made clear, we are always open to representations. We have listened carefully to those that have already been made, by both hon. Members from all parts of the House and Julie Bailey, to whom I join the Opposition spokesman in paying tribute. However, so far we remain unconvinced, and that is as far as I can go.
	In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) from Sir Ian Kennedy, the outgoing chairman of the Healthcare Commission who chaired the Bristol babies inquiry, Sir Ian said that he did not think that a public inquiry would be justified in this case. However, as we have repeatedly made clear to hon. Members and to the local patients organisations and others, if there are significant issues or lines of inquiry that they do not think have been addressed, either by the Healthcare Commission report or by the subsequent reviews, the Secretary of State will be only too happy to consider them.

William Cash: Is the Minister aware of the fact that, before he became the chairman of the Healthcare Commission, on the Bristol inquiry, Sir Ian Kennedy said that the importance of a public inquiry is that it offers an opportunity for people to be heard and to listen to others? He also said that a public inquiry
	allows for the public venting of anger, distress and frustration; it provides a public stage on which this can take place.
	Sir Ian Kennedy thoroughly endorsed the idea of a public inquiry. If Bristol, why not Stafford?

Ben Bradshaw: For once I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because it makes my case exactly for me. If someone such as Sir Ian Kennedy, who said that about the importance of public inquiries, does not believe that a public inquiry is necessary or desirable in this case, that absolutely makes the point for me. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
	Martin Yeates, the former chief executive at the foundation trust, stepped down from his post on 3 March 2009. The interim chair of Mid Staffordshire, David Stone, subsequently suspended Mr. Yeates, pending an investigation. That investigation has now concluded and the foundation trust has decided to accept Mr. Yeates's resignation, with no disciplinary procedures being invoked. I accept that that is a matter for the foundation trust's board, in conjunction with Monitor. Both the Secretary of State and I have been clear all along that the proper process must be followed in relation to any individuals.
	However, given the grave events at Stafford hospital and the understandable level of public concern, I find it hard to understand why the decision was made not to go through a disciplinary process. The Secretary of State has accordingly written to Monitor today, asking to see a copy of the investigation into Mr. Yeates. If we still have concerns after we have seen that report and heard the explanation, we will consider what further action needs to be taken. The Secretary of State could not have made it clearer that there can be no rewards for failure in the NHS.
	We did that in the case of Rose Gibb, the former chief executive of Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells hospital, and we won. We expect the whole of the NHS to understand that the public will not tolerate cosy deals when they have suffered from such abject management failure.

Norman Lamb: Would the Minister undertake to publish that report, so that everyone can see what it says about the governance of that hospital?

Ben Bradshaw: I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to consider that question, but given that he commissioned that workjust as he did all the other reports, all of which have been put in the public domainI should be very surprised if he did not agree. However, we need to see the report first.
	The Healthcare Commission's report laid bare appalling failure at Mid Staffordshire. The two subsequent reports made further and far-reaching recommendations, which are being implemented locally and nationally, in order to ensure that every hon. Member will be satisfied that such terrible failure can never be allowed to happen again.

Norman Lamb: I welcome this debate and I am pleased that it has been called. I join the Minister and the Conservative spokesman in paying tribute to the work of Julie Bailey who, together with others, has been persistent in refusing to be fobbed off in the pursuit of complaints. They are to be applauded for their persistence.
	On the very day that the Healthcare Commission report was published and a statement was made in the House, I called for a public inquiry, as, I think, did the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).

William Cash: No, the day before.

Norman Lamb: I apologise; the hon. Gentleman beat me to it.
	Ever since then, I have maintained my view that a public inquiry must be set up. There are Labour Members who feel the same way, and it is important that we all maintain the pressure on the Government to accept our pleas. It was interesting to hear the Minister's response regarding the wording of the Government's amendment. The words that he used in his speech seemed to suggest that there was a chink of light there. It seemed to me that the Government might just be open to persuasion.

Michael Fabricant: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman thinks the Government might be open to persuasion, but what I heard from the MinisterI hope he will correct me if I misheard himwas that the Government were always willing to entertain representations. That is fine, but he also said that a public inquiry would be a distraction to the management. To me, that certainly does not suggest a chink of light; it merely suggests that the Government will listen but take no action.

Norman Lamb: I understand that concern, and all hon. Members on both sides of the House who feel strongly about this should combine to put the maximum pressure on the Government, not only in tonight's vote but subsequently, to ensure that the issue does not just go away. There is always a danger, as events move on, that these issues can slip down the agenda, but we must not let that happen in this case.

William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, when this matter comes before the Health Select Committee, as I understand it will, the preliminary debate that takes place here will be followed by significant evidence that will be impossible for the Government to ignore?

Norman Lamb: I am sure that that is the case. I agree that it should be impossible for the Government to ignore that evidence.
	To date, the Government's response has been to scapegoat the local leadership. The local leadership absolutely has to take responsibility for what happened, but the Government's strategy appears to be to apologise on its behalf and to move on. That will not do. It is right that those in a position of leadership at the hospital should be held to account, but that strategy fails to recognise that wider lessons need to be learned from this awful horror. The former chairman of the Healthcare Commission described the events as the worst care ever witnessed in the NHS. That in itself is a pretty compelling reason for a public inquiry in this case. Those wider lessons seem to have been brushed aside by the Government, reflecting their stubborn resistance to recognising that, for example, the four-hour target played any part in what happened.
	I want to run through some of the key reasons for holding a public inquiry. They relate to the specific situation at the hospital and to the wider issues involved. The first involves the position of Mr. Yeates. The Minister said that he was concerned because the board had allowed Mr. Yeates to resign without going through a disciplinary process. I am pleased that the Minister said he expected the report into these events to be published. He said that the Government would need to see it first, but it should be placed in the public domain irrespective of what it says. It was commissioned by the Secretary of State to look into what led to this awful disaster, and to examine Mr. Yeates' role in it, and that information should be put into the public domain straight away.

Andrew Lansley: Is the hon. Gentleman perplexed, as I am, about why, if the Secretary of State commissioned Peter Garland to undertake this work, Peter Garland did not report to the Secretary of State? If the foundation trust has the degree of independence that I think it does, and it has now made its decision, the Secretary of State must surely be powerless to do anything about it now.

Norman Lamb: I think so.
	In regard to the resignation, it is now too late to institute disciplinary proceedings. We have been presented with a fait accompli, and the former chief executive is now being paid to be on gardening leave for the rest of his notice period. The NHS is paying for that, despite the fact that there appears to be good evidence to justify a disciplinary inquiry. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that the report should have gone to the Secretary of State, given that it was commissioned by him.

Andrew Lansley: I hesitate to intervene on the hon. Gentleman again, because he is an employment lawyer by profession. Mr. Yeates might not necessarily be beyond disciplinary action, but would there not need to be substantive evidence of a breach of his fiduciary duties to the board in order for such penalties to be contemplated? A public inquiry might be a principal mechanism by which such evidence could be gathered.

Norman Lamb: I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. That is one of my reasons for arguing that a public inquiry should take place.

Ben Bradshaw: It might be helpful to both hon. Members if I clarify who commissioned the report. As a foundation trust was involved, the report was of course commissioned by the trust itself, but that decision came out of the overall response to the Healthcare Commission inquiry by the Secretary of State, in conjunction with Monitor. So in legal terms, it is absolutely right that the report should go back to the trust, but that does not take away from the points that I made earlier about what needs to happen now.

Norman Lamb: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification.
	The second reason why there should be a public inquiry is the role of the clinicians in the hospital. Many people have expressed their concern that, despite the awful things going on therethe dreadful care to which the former chair of the Healthcare Commission referredit appears that no clinician saw fit to report their concerns to senior management or elsewhere, with the possible exception of one nurse, about whom we heard last weekend. It could be argued that they felt prevented from doing so by the bullying culture in the organisation. However, they have a professional clinical duty to their patients, and, irrespective of the extent to which the unit was understaffed, if they saw that there was inadequate care, it was their duty to report their concerns and to get something done about it. That did not happen, and that in itself is a scandal that should be investigated by way of a public inquiry. It is not being looked at in any other way. None of the reports that the Secretary of State has commissioned has looked at that issue. As things stand, those clinicians who participated in the care that has been so heavily criticised are presumably continuing to work in the NHS. Should we not be concerned about that? That issue is not being addressed, and it ought to be.
	The other issue relating to clinicians is the culture of bullying that appears to exist.  The Sunday Telegraph this weekend reported concerns raised by a nurse who had previously worked in the A and E department at the hospital. She raised those concerns in November 2007, yet nothing appears to have been done. She referred to racist abuse, and to the fact that nurses were
	routinely ordered to lie about how long patients had been waiting.
	She also reported:
	Junior doctors were bullied into discharging patients before they had been properly examined in order to meet targets.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman might know that many of those allegations were also made during Simon Cox's programme on Radio 4, which many of us have on disc. These questions must be looked into properly because they are so grave, as some of the quotations that I shall give the House from the statement by that nurse will amplify.

Norman Lamb: I agree. I am making the point that this is another reason for the whole issue to be the subject of a public inquiry.
	It is easy to say that this culture exists in only one hospital and could not exist in any other, but we hear too many stories of a similar culture existing elsewhere. That is why the wider implication of the management of the NHS and the extent to which clinicians and other hospital staff feel constantly under pressure because of targets imposed from above, and the way those targets are enforced, should be looked into by a public inquiry.
	The third reason why there should be a public inquiry is to secure justice for the families that have been so horrendously affected by this awful scandal. So many of them have refused to be fobbed off, but the fundamental question remains about how justice will be secured for families of the victims of this dreadful care. That is another issue that is not being properly addressed in any systematic way other than by this review of patient notesa review that looks at each case individually, which is not sufficient if we want to see the whole picture and understand how this happened. We need to give those families a real sense that their concerns are being properly addressed.
	The fourth issue, which I raised in an intervention on the Minister, is the role of the coroner. The Minister made the point that there appears to be some challenge to the conclusions of the Healthcare Commission report; I understood the Minister to dispute the fact that the inquiry was obstructed in some way. Surely, however, we need to address the fact that there is potential for coroners to obstruct inquiries, so we need clear rules and clear guidelines about coroners' responsibilities to co-operate fully in such circumstances.
	When the Minister referred to legislation going through Parliament, I assume he meant the Coroners and Justice Bill. He said that there were measures in it to address some of these concerns, but will he clarify whether any thought is being given to the possibility of tabling an amendment to place a specific statutory duty on coroners to co-operate in inquiries of this sort? I would be happy to allow him to intervenenow or laterto confirm that it will be possible to amend this draft legislation.
	The next reason why we need a public inquiry relates to the roles of the PCT and the SHA in the context of what this whole scandal means for commissioning. We hear a lot about the pursuit of world-class commissioning, but in this particular case it is clear that the PCT and the SHA failed abysmally to play an adequate role as commissioners of care at this hospital.

Greg Mulholland: Does this case not show that this health authority tier or level is, frankly, unnecessary? We know that the health service needs to rationalise and save money, so is it not time to abolish a failing tier of the NHS that did not do its job in this case?

Norman Lamb: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend.
	Sir Ian Kennedy, in a letter that followed the publication of this report, said:
	The responsibility for managing performance, including effecting necessary improvements, lay and lies with the trust and its performance manager, the Strategic Health Authority, the commissioning PCT and, after the award of Foundation Trust status, Monitor. These performance managers
	it seems to me that there are too many of them
	are able to visit any trust and call for whatever information that they believe is necessary from the Trust to carry out their duties.
	Well, what did they do to carry out those duties? What visits did they undertake, or was it simply a paper exercise, considering those excessive death rates from afar? That is a central question.
	Sir Ian went on to say in the letter:
	Following normal practice, efforts were made
	by the Healthcare Commission as part of its investigation
	to liaise with the trust and the SHA to explore what was needed.
	So what co-operation did it receive? Was the response adequate, particularly that of the SHA? Sir Ian continued:
	The investigation team at the Commission did not know that the Trust was being considered for this status
	that is, foundation status, which seems quite extraordinary
	and was not asked whether there were concerns about the performance of the Trust in terms of the safety and quality of care... We understand that Monitor asked the Strategic Health Authority for its views; the SHA was aware of our work on mortality outliers and 'alerts' by then,
	yet it did not say anythingagain, quite extraordinary.
	That, of course, raises questions about the chief executive of the SHA, who was Cynthia Bower. I should say that she has been to see me and that I had a very helpful meeting with her; she was very candid. It nevertheless seems to me of fundamental importance that because she was the chief executive of the SHAone of the performance managers of this hospitalthere is a conflict of interest so far as any internal investigation is concerned. That is another clear reason why we must have an independent public inquiry.
	The next reason is the role of targets, particularly the four-hour target. The Minister steadfastly sticks to the line that it is all down to just this hospital and the outrageous way its management behaved. When visiting hospitals around the countryI am sure other hon. Members will have noticed the same thing on their visitsI have found that one of the things clinicians say in A and E departments, and this is a credit to the Government, is that the four-hour target has transformed how A and E and hospitals operate. I accept that it has been transformational: we all know it was unacceptable for people to be left waiting in corridors on trolleys for 10 or 11 hours. The Minister must recognise that there are nevertheless concerns in hospitals up and down the country about how the target is enforced, particularly when it becomes a straitjacket. If the Minister talks to clinicians, as I know he has done, I am sure he will also be aware of concerns expressed about the operation of this target in many hospitals. The Royal College of Nursing has made it very clear that strict adherence to 98 per cent. compliance with the four-hour target has caused real difficulties.

Michael Fabricant: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a nearby hospital in Westminster provides an example? The system there is that when people enter a room, there is effectively no system until they eventually get to see a nurse for triageand it is fairly chaotic at times. When I asked why it was like that, I was told that if people were given a number as at a delicatessen counter in a supermarket, the four-hour clock would have to start. What happens, then, is that the patient dripping with blood fails to get to see the triage nurse; meanwhile, the patient who is relatively fit does get to see that nurse when the four-hour clock starts ticking. That is the sort of distortion that occurs.

Norman Lamb: I am grateful for that intervention, as precisely that point was made in the Healthcare Commission report:
	Doctors were moved from treating seriously ill patients to deal with those with more minor ailments, in order to avoid breaching the four-hour waiting time target. Patients were moved to the clinical decision unit to 'stop the clock' but were then not properly monitored, since this area was not staffed.
	The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) has made that point, but the Minister seems blind to the possibility that such concerns might exist elsewhere and that patient care might have been compromised. That is a fundamental reason why a public inquiry needs to explore that issue.
	The Healthcare Commission report also included a graph showing a spike just before the four-hour point, with large numbers of patients being discharged as the clocked ticked away towards it. Surely we need to explore whether the same pattern of discharge applies in other hospitals to see whether the same pressures might be applying elsewhere. The Government seem blind even to considering that possibility and so defensive about the four-hour target that they are not prepared even to consider whether any potentially adverse aspects apply to it. The conclusions of the Colin-Thom report appear also to contradict the Minister with regard to the role of the four-hour target and how it has been implemented.
	The next reason there needs to be an independent inquiry is the implications of the scandal for the regulators. The process that this hospital went through to become a foundation trust without anyone stopping the hospital in its tracks to demand improvements before it happened beggars belief. It is extraordinary that it was signed off by the primary care trust, the strategic health authority, the Department of Health, the Secretary of State himself, as I understand it, and the Monitor board.
	Did no one notice what was going on in that hospital, right under their noses? It smacks of an appalling tick-box culture whereby, provided those on the ground have ticked the box to say that something is working properly, everybody accepts it and the hospital gets its star rating. That is exactly the same as the culture that applied in Haringey, which gave the local authority three stars at the time when baby P was dying in tragic circumstances. The way in which hospitals achieve secure foundation trust status must surely be further explored.

William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept what I said earlier about the paper trail and the minutes going right back from the current chief executive of the NHS and the chief executive of the Care Quality Commission to Shropshire and Staffordshire strategic health authority and the West Midlands strategic health authority? At the critical time when all these things were happening, the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) was Secretary of State and 17,000 jobs were being cut out of the health service. This is a continuous paper trail, which can be demonstrated.

Norman Lamb: That is the sort of evidence that needs to be properly and fully considered by a public inquiry. A few weeks ago, the press reported on the fact that some 22 hospital trusts have been given foundation trust status despite failings, sometimes of a serious nature, in meeting basic health care standards.
	A lot of work on Staffordshire hospital has been done by  The Sunday Telegraph, which reported:
	At the point the authorisation was made, the trust was missing government targets to reduce MRSA, had long waits in AE, and for clot-busting treatment for heart attack victims, the documents from Monitor, the regulator, show.
	A further 21 trusts were also given
	foundation trust status
	despite concerns about the quality of the care they provided.
	What happened in those cases? They were issued with side letters by Monitor requiring them to take corrective action to remove those concerns, but they still secured foundation trust status. Was that made public? Were the public ever told in all those cases that there were concerns about patient care quality? That is very much not the message that the Government gave when foundation trusts came into being. That status was supposed to be a symbol of absolute qualityquality assurance.
	We must bear it in mind that for the chief executives of hospital trusts there is a big financial incentive. They invariably receive substantial pay increases when their hospital becomes a foundation trust. That needs to be looked at in a full public inquiry.
	The Conservative spokesman mentioned the handling of complaints. He said that complaints ended up at a range of different destinations, which is surely completely unacceptable. The public must understand exactly what will happen to their complaint if it is not accepted and upheld at trust level.
	There are vital lessons that need to be learned from this awful scandal. It is all very easy simply to place all the blame on the local leadership, but there are clearly lessons that the wider NHS and the Department of Health need to learn. It is surely our duty to all patients in the NHS to ensure that those lessons are learned. For that reason, there must be a public inquiry.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The clock is moving on, and, given the number of Members seeking to catch my eye, I propose to reduce the limit on speeches to 10 minutes as from now.

David Kidney: As a Labour Member of Parliament I am committed to the NHS, and as Stafford's Member of Parliament I am committed to a hospital in Stafford, so it broke my heart to read in the Healthcare Commission's report that patients had been severely, appallingly let down by the NHS and the local hospital.
	I support a full, independent public inquiry into every aspect of what went wrong, why, and how it can be put right for the future. I shall vote for an inquiry tonight. Yes, an inquiry will take some time to complete its investigations and deliberations and produce a report, and, yes, it can be distracting for people who have a job to do at the hospital while the investigations are ongoing. However, the work has to be done. One thing we can usefully do is talk about the form and terms of reference of the inquiry. If the Government will not give way on this today, one way in which we can continue the pressure is to start to get ready for an inquiry.
	I wish to say a word about my hospitalif I may call it thatand what my public and my patients want today. An inquiry will take some time, but there are things that need urgent attention at Stafford hospital, and I do not want us to lose sight of that urgency because we are also talking about a public inquiry. For example, the Healthcare Commission's report told us about the severe understaffing on wards and the urgent need for more staff. It told us about missing medical equipment and the urgent need for it to be provided. Six weeks later, Professor Alberti produced his report and said that there were staffing shortages and that more staff urgently needed to be appointed. He said that there was an urgent need to provide some medical equipment that was still missing. Six weeks on, the urgency had not been accepted and implemented. We must not overlook the fact that those things are still urgent today.
	I remind the House that the Healthcare Commission produced damning evidence about three aspects of the hospital: accident and emergency, emergency care and some nursing care. However, in the same report it mentioned positive things about the hospital. There were no concerns about elective care, and during the three-year period investigated there was a decline in the number of complaints about out-patient care. There was praise for the acute coronary care unit and the critical care unit. It is important to retain a sense of balance. People going into that hospital had good experiences in some parts of it at some times, just as others had bad, sometimes appallingly bad or fatal experiences. I ask the House to bear that in mind.
	When Professor Alberti went in after the Healthcare Commission, he was able to talk about improvements in A and E and say that there had been some improvements in emergency care, although not enough. He mapped the way to continuing that improvement. He said that even when he was there, there were still instances of poor nursing care that needed addressing. He made a warts-and-all assessment, which showed that we still need urgent attention given to some things. It is very important to remember that.
	Let us imagine the effects of working at that hospital today, given all the bad publicity that has appeared nationally, and the likelihood that people will complain about anything for fear it will not be spotted if a complaint is not made about it. Let us imagine every story that someone chooses to publicise becoming a headline in the local newspaper. Morale is very low at the hospital. There are fears that even now, as it recruits extra staff, some people will not want to work there because they have seen the publicity.
	Into that worrying situation I stepped, with four simple proposals. I wrote to my constituents asking whether they agreed with them. I proposed that those responsible for the management of the hospital on whose failings the Healthcare Commission reported should be replaced, that staffing levels should be corrected and retained, that there should be stronger powers for patients and the public, and that there should be an independent inquiry. So far more than 3,500 constituents have responded, and more than 90 per cent. of them agree with my proposals. I emphasise to the Minister that 3,500 people in the Stafford constituency think that there should be an independent inquiry.
	Let me say something about the rebuilding of the trust board. We heard that the chair had resigned just before the publication of the Healthcare Commission's report. I shall not elaborate on what was said by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) about the treatment of the chief executive. Let me merely say how angry local people are about the fact that step down did not mean resign at the outset, the fact that he received pay while suspended, and the fact that he is now apparently being allowed to resign with no consequences while still receiving that pay. People are very, very angry about that.
	We are recruiting a new chair, a new chief executive and new non-executive directors, and there will be a new board. At present, however, the trust faces the greatest challenges. An interim chair with another job in Sheffield and an interim executive with another job in Chesterfield are managing and leading the hospital. It is still a worrying time, and I ask for Members' support for the management and staff of the hospital as they try to do all the things that need to be done in the present circumstances.
	It is true that the board needs to move from a closed to an open culture, but it has reverted to holding its meetings in public, and at the first of those meetings it reaffirmed its policy on whistleblowing. I showed the whisteblowing policy to Public Concern at Work, which made constructive suggestions for its improvement. The trust has agreed to write to every employee about the policy in this month's pay packet, confirming that people are free to make their concerns known if they have them. Those are all valuable developments.
	It should also be remembered that the board is yet still to present its action plan in response to the report. It is now calling the plan its transformation programme, and I understand that it was agreed with Monitor at the end of last week. There have been some public presentationsfor instance, to the overview and scrutiny committee, which has been dealing with the planbut if we seriously believe that the public and patients should be involved in the trust in the future, we must accept that the plan will require full public consultation and approval. I am sure we will make certain that that happens.
	I should like to say much more about staffing levels, but we are short of time. Although there is no agreed level for wards in this countryor internationallythe Royal College of Nursing has valuable policy guidance, which reminds us that a number of factors must be taken into account. In my view, the dependency levels of patients are an especially important factor; but so, of course, are nursing experience, a skills mix, a settled staff, minimum sickness and absenteeism and less reliance on agency cover, and all those factors affected hospital staff during the time we are discussing.
	I agree that the handling of complaints was atrocious, and that we must adopt an open and learning culture. That will require constant dialogue between patients, their relatives, the public, and those who work at the hospital. It should not be a big thing to say that something is wrong at the hospital: people should be able to accept that and act on it. I have told Ministers before today that the LINk in Staffordshire is particularly poorly developed. We need to be helped to make it the best of its kind, not one of the weaker of its kind.
	Let me now deal with the arguments for an inquiry. We do need an inquiry. The trust pulled the wool over the eyes of the Healthcare Commission for three years. In each of those three years, the commission produced improving assessments of a trust that it later said was so bad. Is the problem self-assessment? Does it constitute a failing of the commission itself that it received more complaints about this trust, in relation to its size, than about any other, and that it produced action plans in response to stage 2 complaints but did not pursue them to establish whether they were implemented? The chairman of that body said there was no need for a public inquiry, but one of the things such an inquiry would look into is the performance of his organisation.
	There should be an investigation. The trust pulled the wool over the eyes of Monitor, as we have heard. The big black hole was about clinical care, where Ministers now accept there was a lacuna, but that has now been put right. Even in terms of Monitor's expert area of governance, management and leadership, the Healthcare Commission report tears the trust apart for secrecy, for as little as possible being reported to the board, and for as little as possible of the board's conduct being made public. Those issues should be investigated.
	For me, the biggest issue is the independence of the case reviews for the relatives of deceased patients, because the trust has organised those reviewsalbeit while bringing in outside clinicians who are independent of it. How can people feel trust in that system? Such reviews should be anchored in a public inquiry; and if there is a role to be considered for the coroner, that needs to be looked into as well.
	All I want to say in conclusion is that 3,500 of my constituents have said there should be an inquiry, and the local councilsStafford borough and Cannock Chase districthave resolved that there should an inquiry as well. The Patients Association has a national petition that people are signing, and the RCN supports this, and PACE 2000, an organisation of elderly people in my constituency, also thinks there should be an inquiry. That is a lot of people, and the Minister should listen to them.

William Cash: This is a debate about freedom of information. It is a tale of cover-ups by two closed cultures: a cover-up by the hospital and its superior organisations, and a cover-up by the Government and their subordinate public organisations. That has resulted in a pincer movement of both death and despair. My constituents and the people representing the interests of the victims and the bereaved demand justice, and they will get justice only if they have a proper inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 because that will call for evidence on oath, and have compulsion of witnesses and proper legal protection for whistleblowers, which is not available under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 as it is bypassed. I am saying not that the 1998 Act is bad in itself, but that it does not operate when certain people get to work on it. There are also good people at the hospital who need to be exonerated, and a public inquiry would provide for that.
	There is now to be a Select Committee inquiry. That will give us the opportunity to present measured evidence, which we cannot do in 10 minutes tonight. I also ask my party's shadow Secretary of State to assure us that we would be able to have a public inquiry if and when we get into government next year, because that would be a good opportunity. I strongly suggest that the credibility of the Government is at stakeand I must say that I dismiss with contempt the Minister's recent trivial speech. Already, two governors have called for a public inquiry of the kind that is required and, as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) has said, Stafford borough council was unanimous in its demand for one.
	I would like to quote from a statement from one of the nurses at this hospital. I want to read it out because it is very important. X and Y are my terms for two nurses:
	I spoke to X. I explained to her the situation and asked her to relay this information to Y. Whilst she did this she kept me on the phone. I heard her tell Y that I had discovered that several patients had breached. I then heard Y tell X to tell me to lie. X came back on to the phone and told me that Y's advice to me was to lie. I told her I was not happy to do this and explained that I had informed the clinical site manager of the breaches.
	She went on to make another statement, again at a critical time. She said:
	I have become increasingly frightened in my place of work,
	and am
	feeling more and more threatened.
	She quotes one of the nurses saying that
	you want to watch being in with her, a lot of people are getting fed up with her and she is going to get what's coming to her. You want to watch your back and be careful or you'll go down with her!
	She also refers to the cumulative effect and says that
	the net result has led me to feel quite terrified given the present context.
	Then she talks about lying about the breach time and an occasion about which she said:
	This incident led me to feel profoundly shocked that a senior colleague could firstly blatantly lie about a patient's breach time, and secondly submit documentation, altered by her, in my name thereby knowingly leaving me open to disciplinary action.
	The statement then contains reference to another patient and quotes that involve some effings here and there. Then she says in respect of a particular patient
	I have heard
	a nurse
	state that she was going to get rid of him. Most recently following his hospital admission after taking an overdose I was present when she said 'He should have taken a few more pills and done the job properly.'
	The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, mentioned racism. The following quotes are mentioned in the statement:
	'what have you got in that ruck-sack Doctor, is it a bomb?'...'Him with the turban' or 'Her with the yashmak.'...'Him over thereOsama's mate'.
	Things continue in the same manner. These allegations clearly have to be properly examined.
	I am not using the names of the people involved, for reasons that I shall come to in a minute. The Minister will not deny that he has asked me why, if I have the evidencefor which people were shrieking when I raised the matter when objecting to our being prevented from having an oral statementI do not anonymise. I shall tell both him and the House why: when I did anonymise it, in a letter to the Secretary of State relating to a hospital nearby, the next thing I knew, after a considerable pause, was that the consultant in question had been suspended. Only last week, he was summoned for a Kafkaesque trial as if he needed to have a psychiatric assessment. I can tell the House that that consultant and the patient in question are constituents of mine and that consultant had saved the child's life. I am so furious that I cannot speak about it. This is the way things are carrying on and we hear these platitudes about whistleblowers being protected under the legislation.
	The marvellous Public Concern at Work charity has made its criticisms, as the hon. Member for Stafford knows because we have been given the same material. The fact is that the whistleblowing policy in this particular hospital has to be reformed along the lines that we will explain later in the Select Committeeunfortunately, I have not time to go into this tonight.
	I am holding a paper written by another consultant, who was suspended at one and a half hours' notice because he had had the temerity to complain about antibiotic policyhe had been with the hospital for many years. I must be careful, because I do not want to expose others to the kind of treatment that the consultant to whom I have referred has received. He was suspended after such a short a notice period on the issue of antibiotic policy and the non-availability of nurses on consultant ward rounds. This is a national disgrace and the legislation does not protect such people properly. The reality is that the allegations that I am making need to be properly examined by the Select Committee, when we have more time to do the job.
	I move on to the question of the manner in which the Government have covered up. I mentioned, much to the Minister's hilarity, which I thought pathetic, that Ian Kennedyhe wrote the foreword to the Bristol inquirysubsequently became chairman of the Healthcare Commission, produced the Stafford report and came up with a different version about the value of public inquiries. That was the point I was making. Ian Kennedy had said:
	A Public Inquiry cannot turn back the clock. It can, however, offer an opportunity to let all those touched by the events, in our case Bristol, be heard and to listen to others.
	He had gone on to talk about the
	public venting of anger, distress and frustration; it provides a public stage on which this can take place.
	I say again that if it is good enough for Bristol, it is good enough for us. He has obviously changed his mind since he became chairman of the Healthcare Commission, and I would like to get all that on the record.

Andrew Lansley: Does my hon. Friend agree that Ian Kennedyunderstandably, in the case of Staffordwas defending the Healthcare Commission, not least because when the Healthcare Commission undertook an investigation it would like not to feel that a precedent had been set that meant that it could be second-guessed by a call for a public inquiry? Does my hon. Friend accept that I do not see this necessarily as setting a precedent? We did not ask for an inquiry after Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells, nor would we set out to do so in other cases. The evidence in this case seems to point to such a wide range of unresolved issues that it demands that we go down that path.

William Cash: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and so does the Royal College of Nursing, which said that the focus on achieving financial targets at Mid Staffordshire was at the expense of appropriate and safe staffing levels and talked about cuts in the number of nurses.
	As I said, the real question is also one of a Government cover-up. It has caused me a lot of difficulty to get some of these minutes, but there is no doubt that the minutes of the various strategic health authoritiesI have them all, so I shall be able to go into them in due course, although not tonightshow a direct paper trail from the decisions that were made when David Nicholson was chairman of certain of these authorities that continued all the way through under the aegis of the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) and also under that of the present Secretary of State. They are all about targets, finance and matters of that kind. Also involved is Mr. Bill Moyes. There is a conflict of interest for the university of Birmingham, which was commissioned by the West Midlands strategic health authority, and a conflict of interest for Mrs. Cynthia Bower, who is now chief executive of the Care Quality Commission.
	The problem that troubles me is the continual conflicts of interest. For example, the university of Birmingham study was funded by the SHA, which set up the steering committee to guide the study. The people who were on the study that led to the analysis of the mortality rates in Mid Staffordshire included the medical director of the SHA and people from the trusts, including the information manager of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. That is a blatant example of conflict of interest.
	In conclusion, although there is much more information that I would like to get out, I shall simply say that we should consider the opening remarks and the constant references to finance, finance, finance in the Mid Staffordshire challenge-to-challenge board meeting. Bill Moyes, now of Monitor, who gave this trust status, said in the vital board-to-board meeting on 5 December 2007 that
	questioning would concentrate on the financial viability and governance of the Trust.
	It is a disgrace.

Tony Wright: It might not be entirely evident from the previous contribution, but we Staffordshire MPs are a rather happy and consensual bunch. We meet regularly on a cross-party basis, and that is certainly unusualit might even be unique in the House. We have been doing so for many years. When we met just last week, we obviously discussed this topic, and we came up with what we thought was a positive idea, which was that we should get all the various people involved in the casethe hospital trust, the primary care trust, the strategic health authority and the regulatorinto a room to ensure that they were making things better. The emphasis todayquite rightly, as it is the focus of the motionhas been on settling the issues with the past. The other, and in some ways more pressing, side of the argument is the need to settle the issues with the future.
	What the people we represent want is an absolute assurance that the problems in Stafford hospital are being sorted out, and that the kind of experiences that the Healthcare Commission report documented are not being repeated. We know that in some respects, at least, they are still being repeated. In some respects, however, they are not: as far as we can tell, the particular acute problems in the accident and emergency department have been resolved by increased staffing, better organisation and so on. However, the Alberti report tells us that there are still problems on the medical wards. The kind of problems that people come to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) or to me with are basic care issues on the wards. Indeed, this weekend I was dealing with a problem, relating to exactly those issues, that is happening now.
	Alberti tells us that there is still a real staffing issue on those wards. The implication is that the care is not good enough. It is to that that we must urgently turn our attention. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said, Alberti also tells us that there are issues with staff not wanting to work in the hospital. Who wants to work in Stafford hospital?so it goes inside the system. The hospital is desperately trying to get agency nurses in, because it cannot recruit normally. Real reputational damage has been done to the hospital, and there has been a real loss of public confidence locally. Those are all matters that need to be attended to.
	As for the reports published so far, I have found them useful. It is difficult for people to say, in a general sense, that we do not know what happened at Stafford. I am afraid that we do know what happened at Stafford. It is difficult to say that we do not know why it happened; having read those reports, I think I do know why it happened. It is difficult to say that we do not know what to do, because we do know what to do to remedy the problems identified. I agree that there are outstanding issues; in a sense, there always will be. There are questions to which we still need answers, and some of them have been raised today. However, on the essence of the matter, I do not think that anybody can claim that we do not know what happened, why it happened, or what we need to do.
	For me, the devastating part of the reportsdevastating because it confirms the impression that I formed of the hospital from cases I had dealt withwas that there was a complete inattention to patients. There was a preoccupation with process. All the reports that have been produced say that. They all identify that as the key issue. That raises many questions about how on earth a hospital could have taken its eye off the ball so comprehensively as far as patients were concerned. How could it not have understood that the quality of patient care is central to all that it does? The reports talk about the problem of culture inside the institution. Problem of culture means not understanding that patient care is central. It means not having set a standard of patient care, around which everything is organised. I am afraid that what the reports tell us about the failure to use complaints intelligently is simply part of that. I speak as someone who has taken a perverse, obsessive interest in complaints over many years.
	We all know, if we are honest, that we never got the system of complaints inside the health service right. I remember sitting on inquiries into complaints in the health service under the previous Government, when it was widely recognised that we had a problem. There have been endless inquiries since then into how we can improve complaints systems. We have set up different systems and tried them out; they have failed, and we have tried new ones.
	I remember listening a few years ago to the permanent secretary of the Department of Health, I think it was, describing how he wanted every patient who came into an NHS hospital to be given what he called a three Cs form. The three Cs were comment, complaint and congratulation. I thought that that was sensible, but when I asked him whether the forms would be universally available in every hospital, he said no; they would simply be available if people wanted to use them. I think we ought systematically to make sure that every in-patient in every hospital in the country is asked for their comments, complaints and congratulations. Having done that, however, we must ensure that in every institution we learn in a systematic and serious way. It is no good simply getting people to tell us things if we do not learn from what they have told us and act on it. There is no reason at all not to do so. Lord Darzi's intervention is extremely valuable in reminding us of something of which we should not need to be reminded: that the quality of patient experience is absolutely central to what the health service ought to be about.

William Cash: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way in the interests of comity in Staffordshire. Does he agree that there is a serious problem with targets and money? Although he may not have seen the report, in the board-to-board meeting on 5 December, which was decisive for the purposes of granting foundation trust status and was chaired by Mr. Moyes, nine out of 46 questions were about matters other than moneysome 35 questions were about money, targets and such things. We must learn from that, as that was where the problem lay.

Tony Wright: My view is that that was overwhelmingly a particular problem in that institution. Indeed, on the day on which the Healthcare Commission report was published, its chairman, Sir Ian Kennedy, to whom reference has been made, went on the radio to say that the NHS was steadily improving. I believe that that is the case, and I speak as someone who uses the NHS heavily. Indeed, I was in hospital this morning being attended to. My experience over the past 10 years is that it is steadily improving. However, there is no question of its improving over the years in Stafford, because the trust did not understand the centrality of patient care.
	I want to spend the last couple of minutes on the inquiry. I am not going to vote against the motion, but I am not going to vote for it, either. There is a real problem with capturing the advantages of a further inquiry, given some pretty demonstrable disadvantages. The advantages are clear: there are questions still to be answered, and there are certainly people on the ground who have been personally affected and whose questions remain unresolved. However, we must not think that a further inquiry does not involve costs. If we are to achieve a relentless focus on improvement, I am not sure that that will be aided by a relentless focus on the past. I want assurances that we can have a further inquiry to tell us things we do not know, but without it carrying the great disadvantage of our taking our eye off the ball and failing to do the things locally that we have to do.
	Five years ago, the Committee that I have the privilege of chairing produced a big report on the whole question of inquiries. The Inquiries Act 2005 was being introduced, and the Government gave evidence to us. We had asked them in what circumstances they would hold an inquiry, and they said:
	There is no standard blueprint for the type of circumstances in which an inquiry might be needed. Matters triggering inquiries are by their nature difficult to foresee.
	They added:
	A common theme tends to be that the subject matter of the inquiry has exposed some possible failing in systems or services, and so has shaken public confidence in these systems or services either locally or nationally.
	On those grounds, there is no question but that Stafford fits: it has shaken public confidence, and the problem is of sufficient severity. We tried to do a little betterI do not have much time, so I shall abbreviate my remarksby producing a checklist of questions that were sensible to ask when the issue of an inquiry arose. As MPs, we ask for inquiries like children ask for sweetsit is what we doso there is a discipline in having to ask such questions. I do not have time to recite them all.

Andrew Lansley: Given the point that the hon. Gentleman made about diversion, does he not accept that nurses working at Staffordshire general hospital, as reported to me by the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, wanted a public inquiry?

Tony Wright: Indeed, and I want an inquiry that tells us some of the things we do not know, but if we are being fair, those people urging a further inquiry have also to be fair and recognise that there are potential risks and dangers in having one. We all want to settle accounts with the past, but we also want to make sure that urgent improvements are made now.
	I end by quoting from Professor Alberti at the end of this report. With reference to Stafford he says:
	The Trust has the potential to become a model small to medium-sized hospital of the future with care delivered promptly and appropriately both in the community and in the hospitaland with poor patient experience a dim and distant memory.
	That has to be our objective.
	In talking about inquiries, the question is whether we can capture some of the advantages of holding a further inquiry while offsetting the very evident possible disadvantages in pursuit of that objective. That is the conversation I intend to have continually with the Government. The Secretary of State has said several times to several of us that he would be happy to have a further inquiry if he thought it would do any good. It is our job to explain to him that it might do some good without doing some harm.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), whom it is my privilege to follow, spoke about the criteria that the Government believe in for a public inquiry. One of the criteria he mentioned was that of systemic failure. The problem that faces us in Staffordshire is one of systemic failure, but it is systemic failure that exists in other hospitals too.
	Before I go any further, I echo the opening words of my friend the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) by saying that, as a Conservative MP, I support the national health service, and as a Conservative MP, I support the workers in the NHS, particularly the workers in Stafford hospital, who at present work under such difficult conditions and who, I am sure, will look at the contents of this debate.
	I said that there have been systemic failures. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), the shadow Secretary of State for Health, mentioned the problem of whistleblowers. At a previous Health questions I said to the Secretary of State for Health that there was another example provided by two people who work in my constituencyI did not give their names because they are terrified that if their names were known, they would lose their job. They work at another hospital in the west midlands and showed me photographs that show disgraceful and unhygienic conditions in that hospital, but they would not leave the evidence with me, which left me in a paralysed situation because I could not do anything without the evidence.
	At the time, the Secretary of State told me that he was amazed that despite the protections that exist for whistleblowers, such huge fear still exists. Once again, the Secretary of State, who, I have no doubt, is a good man and has the best interests of the national health service at heart, said that he was amazed that whistleblowers did not speak out at Stafford hospital. As my constituents said to me, with nurses, doctors and even consultants being made redundant, would they be next? That is the issue that faces all those who work at Stafford hospital or other hospitals that may not have such acute problems but nevertheless require the shining light of publicity, or at least exposure.
	The report came out a few months ago and spoke of systemic weaknesses that have existed over the past three or four years. However, I spent a day with a paramedic crew from the old Staffordshire ambulance service, before it became a part of the West Midlands ambulance service. The crew said to me in 2000, Mr. Fabricant, if, God forbid, anything happens to you or your dearest, don't send them to Stafford. If you have to go to A and E, go to Burton hospital, because the survival rate is far greater there. I believe that the problem has existed for many years and is not just a recent occurrence.
	We have heard about the evidence from nurses. One nurse provided senior managers with details of her concerns in November 2007, but they were ignored. Her report talked about doctors and nurses being ordered to discharge people who were critically ill and, as we have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), to lie about how long others were waiting.
	The nurse documented cases, including that of an elderly patient who died the day after being sent home against her doctor's wishes. The lady concerned, who suffered from a bowel condition, had been taken to A and E suffering from acute abdominal pain, and anyone who has been to medical school for just a year and a half, let alone longer, will know that acute abdominal pain needs to be examined very seriously. It turned out that she had a perforated bowel, but she was sent home because that was the ethos at Stafford general hospital. The nurse said:
	I will never forgive the moment when the patient clasped my hand and said 'Am I going to die?' I can't say that she would definitely have been saved if she had been given the right care, but at the very least she should have been given some comfort and dignity.
	Despite the disadvantages that the Minister and the hon. Member for Cannock Chase have pointed out, I passionately believe that we still need a public inquiry, not to look to the past, but to provide lessons so that we can avoid the situation in the future at Stafford general hospital and stop the instances that I discussed a few moments ago which prevent whistleblowers in other hospitals from making their views known. A public inquiry is important for our constituents, and I commend the hon. Member for Stafford for having the courage of his convictions and saying that he will vote tonight for an inquiry. His constituents, like mine and others in Staffordshire, all want to feel that justice will not only be done, but be seen to be done, and that there will be lessons learned and additional protections not only at Stafford general hospital but at hospitals in other parts of the country.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Health needs to answer some questions, and I should be grateful if she addressed them in her winding-up speech. First, does she think it right that the former chairman of the West Midlands strategic health authority, Cynthia Bower, is now in charge of the Care Quality Commission, the actual body that is responsible for monitoring the progress of Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust? Surely that is a conflict of interest. If there is not a public inquiry, what action can the Minister take to restore faith in Stafford general hospital among the residents not only of Stafford but of other parts of Staffordshire?
	How will we recruit nurses? We have already heard that there is a recruitment problem, because Stafford general is now branded a hospital that we would not wish it to be. One has only to read the comments in Staffordshire newspapers, such as the Stoke Sentinel, the  Staffordshire Newsletter, and the  Express and Star, to know the very real concerns that people continue to have about health care in the area.
	What progress is being made towards a coherent five-year plan for the trust, as recommended by the Alberti report? Still we hear that medical care on the wards is not as it should be. What progress is being made towards recruiting experienced surgeons for night shifts at the hospital? That is still a real problem for a hospital with an accident and emergency department. Finally, can the Minister give assurances that, at hospitals nationwide and not just at Stafford, patients are not simply being dumped outside accident and emergency wards so that the four-hour waiting time targets can be hit?
	As I mentioned earlier in an intervention, such things happen not only at Stafford hospital, but here in WestminsterI have seen it for myself. Yes, targets can be good; I am not saying that we should have no targets at all. But not to accept that targets can endanger and distort clinical care is to live in a dangerous fantasy that puts the lives of all our constituents at risk.

Richard Taylor: I commend the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) for his powerful comments. He has been attacked because he did not come to my debate on whistleblowing; it was said that he had not taken every opportunity to participate in debates. I should defend him. As that debate was so short, I said that I would not take any interventions and I encouraged him not to come.
	Having got that off my chest, I turn to the Minister's contribution. He said that he might change his mind. The whole point of debates in this place is to give people a chance to change their minds. I have changed the mind of only one MP during my whole career herebut as I have done it once, I have every hope of doing it again. My presence here shows that the concerns go wider than Stafford. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) implied that we know why it all happened, but I do not think that we know enough. We have to find out more, so that the same does not happen anywhere else.
	I have looked through the Healthcare Commission report in some detail because I am very bothered about why there were no whistleblowers. The Minister himself stated that staff did not put their concerns on record, and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) also implied that. Actually, what they say is not correct; the report shows that concerns were raised. I shall pick out some bits of it to show that. Page 37 states that
	Many clinical staff told us of their concerns about the quality of care at the trust and gave specific examples.
	Further on, the report states:
	In September 2006, a paper to the hospital management board highlighted how the one in two on-call rota, with the two consultants taking turns to cover, was not tenable.
	Page 45 refers to the same paper's reference to the inadequate level of middle-grade staffing. Page 46 mentions that the regional postgraduate dean drew attention to problems of the training and supervision of middle-grade doctors.
	Page 47 contains a long paragraph, which I am afraid I am going to quote:
	In April 2005, the medical division identified a risk that there would be too few staff to support the service due to failing to replace staff who terminated their employment. This was recorded on the risk register, but no review date was provided. In July 2005, it was noted that future demands of the service may not be met due to insufficient levels of staff in the department. From these entries, it is evident that staffing levels were considered to be inadequate as far back as 2005.
	Page 47 also refers to a review by the Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust that was critical of the level of nursing supervision. Page 62 describes reconfiguration of the medical wards in 2006, which led to changes in the skills mix of the nursing staff that were unacceptable to many consultants.

William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the details of the Healthcare Commission report clearly demonstrate that the board was spending too much time on finance and matters of that kind? As I demonstrated from the minutes, this goes right the way back to the early decisions that were taken by the strategic health authorities, which were based on targets that are part and parcel of the national health system as a whole, as run by the current chief executive of the NHS.

Richard Taylor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I will come to exactly that point a little later, because there is a quote about it in the report.
	Another important part of the report, on page 63, concerns high levels of staff sickness and complaints to the commission that had not been taken up. On page 93, there is an absolutely vital table that summarises some of the findings about the trust's approach to levels of nursing staff. It says:
	In 2002, the review of clinical governance by the Commission for Health Improvement pointed out that the number of nurses was low compared with other similar hospitals.
	It also says:
	In 2005, the trust had more wards with below the national average number of nurses than wards with above the average, by almost two to one.
	Anybody who reads page 93 can pick up on several similar points.
	Why did all the long-standing concerns that had been expressed never get through? We have to find out where the blockage was. Was it between the working doctors and nurses and their clinical directors or nurse managers, or between the clinical directors or nurse managers and the medical director and the director of nursing? Was it held up above that level, by the chief executive preventing it from getting to the board? There are some clues about why senior staff perhaps did not make more effort to take matters wider. Page 101 of the report says:
	Staff, including senior staff, had little confidence that the trust learned from incidents.
	On page 106, the Healthcare Commission says:
	We did not gain an impression from staff that the trust had had an open culture in which concerns could be raised, were welcomed and resolved. We have noted above that several consultants considered that the trust did not welcome criticism or concerns.
	On page 108, we see the point raised by the hon. Member for Stone:
	The minutes of the board show that finance and achieving foundation trust status were given high priority. There was little recorded discussion about quality of care.
	There are still questions about where these complaints were held up. Why were whistleblowers not going higher to the Royal College of Nursing or direct to the strategic health authority? I hope that we will ask those questions at the Health Committee meeting dedicated to this problem.
	The Health Secretary has made some useful suggestions for the future, but I am currently much more interested in the past. That is why I believe that an independent inquiry is essential and should not be deferred. We want the people who have got us into this state, not those who are trying to get us out of it, to appear before an inquiry. We know that many new young consultants have been appointed who have nothing to do with what has happened and that there are new interim executives. Surely we could separate the people responsible for what has happened from those who are interested in the future. I strongly support the plea for an independent inquiry to satisfy staffand exonerate those who had nothing to do with itrelatives and patients. At the same time, it is crucial to continue to make improvements for the future. However, I believe that different people are making the improvements from those who caused the problems in the past.

Robert Syms: As a member of the Select Committee on Health, I intend to make only a brief contribution. Like the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), who is also a member, I look forward to taking evidence and listening to what people have to say.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). The subject is unusual for Opposition day debates, but the issues that it raises are important for us all and the NHS generally. At least, we have put pressure on the Government and asked them more questions about outcomes and what is happening.
	Four hundred people may have died as a result of what happened. If a jumbo jet had fallen out of the sky or been blown up, or a major train crash had occurred, there would be a public inquiry. I understand the Minister's comments about the length of time we have spent and so on, but we are considering individual and family tragedies, about which people want their say. They want to listen to other people's evidence. That is important for not only the grieving process, but the community around the hospital, who look to it to care for their family and friends, and feel let down.
	We also need a public inquiry because staff have been put under tremendous pressure in the hospital. We have heard many examples of people who have been forced to input data into computers and use all sorts of methods to deal with the target regime. I appreciate that staffing levels have improved, but when a hospital gets a bad name, it is difficult to get people of high quality and calibre back into that hospital to turn things around.
	My hon. Friends and Labour Members who are present, for whom I have great respect, have called for a public inquiry and there is a general view that we need to examine the matter more deeply and reflect on the issues that have been raised.
	There are several concerns. I broadly welcome foundation trusts, but, as has been said, I was amazed that we ended up with a foundation trust, when, apart from the Secretary of State's recommendation, the evidence was based on various tiers and organisations in the NHS, which were all thought to be robust. That turned out not to be the case when foundation trust status was granted in 2008.
	I welcome the Minister's comments at the beginning of the debate about the steps that have been taken to improve the service. The Care Quality Commission, the PCT and Monitor will monitor the hospital after three months and six months and devise further action plans to improve its outcomes.
	I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire about the need for tougher inspection to root out failure and for a much stronger voice for patients. The old community health trusts were a pain in the arse, if I can say that

Stephen O'Brien: In quotation marks.

Robert Syms: Mr. Deputy Speaker is reflecting on that.
	However, the community health trusts were the genuine voice of the patients. We have moved through various different models and, to be honest, there is not a big enough voice for patient organisations, which pick up what is being said at the grass roots. If the Government had not been so quick to get rid of the community health trusts, the warning signals would have gone off rather earlier.
	We need powers for patients to hold failing hospitals to account. We need an end to box-ticking and targets. Indeed, we have heard the reverse: that outcomes are important, not targets, because when people are under pressure, they will be made to get round targets. We need to expose hospitals that are failing their communities to public scrutiny.
	This has been a reasonable debate and there have been some good contributions. I agreed with a lot of what the Minister said earlier, but I did not agree with his stubbornness. I am sure that the civil servants are saying, Don't go for a public inquiry, Minister. It'd take too long and be expensive, and things are happening already. I intend to support my hon. Friends in the Lobby. Even if the Government win the vote this eveningit would be very surprising if they did notI hope that Ministers will go away and reflect on what opinion in all parts of the House is saying on the matter.

Stephen O'Brien: We have had an important and comprehensive debate that has been characterised by cogent, balanced and sincere contributionsindeed, one could almost describe them as pleasfrom all parts of the House, as befits such a gravely serious issue. It is an issue that must reach beyond party politics.
	We must remember that, at its heart, we are talking about the avoidable deaths of up to 1,200 people. Each of those deaths represents family and friends who are left with the heavy burden of grief, which is only intensified by the serious questions that need answering. Furthermore, those deaths can only be correlative to many hundreds more patients who did not receive the treatment that they deservedtreatment that they rightly expect of our NHS. Before going any farther, we must take a moment to remember all those who have suffered and who continue to suffer and grieve because of the failings at the Mid Staffordshire trust. Equally, let us keep in mind the wonderful work of the individuals and teams working across the NHS who have been so badly let down by what has happened in Stafford general hospital.
	We have brought a very simple motion before the House today. This is not the moment to knock the Government particularly harshly, although it is clear that there is a continuum of culpability, which extends from the local decision makers to Ministers and, more significantly, calls into question Government policies. Our motion this evening does not seek to apportion blame for the Mid Staffordshire tragedy. Indeed, every speaker has agreed with us and with our motion, other than the Minister and the honourable exception of the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). He said that he would not vote against the motion. He remains to be convinced whether to join us in the Lobby and might just be persuadedand I hope to try.
	Our motion simply calls for an independent inquiry, which the relatives of those who died and the survivors of poor care at the trust both need and deserve. The important point is not just what went wrong, but how and why it dida point forcefully made by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), who, with his professional point of view, has a double interest in understanding thatand what must now be done to prevent it from happening again. That is a point to impress upon the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, because unless one understands the past, it is very difficult to move on and ensure that the right things are done for the future.
	Despite those wonderful NHS staff, Mid Staffordshire and Stafford general hospital have been blighted, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) said in an intervention, when he gave personal testimony of the most wonderful care that his mother received. The problem extends way beyond the people in Staffordshire, but we heard powerful arguments from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), whose speech not only carried the House, but was redolent of what it means to try to seek justice. He argued forcefully, using evidence that he was able to give only partially, but which would be available in a public inquiry, that the only way to secure that justice would be in a public and independent inquiry.
	The Government have said that they remain unconvinced, which carries the implication that they could be convinced, and we all hope that they will be, following tonight's debate. They will only have had to listen to the excellent speech of my hon. Friend. He asked directly whether the official Opposition would consider initiating an independent public inquiry, and I can tell him that we do not exclude the possibility, if we are in office, of establishing such an independent public inquiry. However, I emphasise that today's debate is taking place because the people of Staffordshire and beyond want an inquiry to be set up now, so our efforts need to be focused on that, not least to persuade the Government to do just that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) focused on the justice of the case, and on what lessons could be learned straight away, right across the NHS. He said that it was necessary to have an inquiry in order to assuage the public's concerns from the past and to learn all the necessary lessons for the future. With local and national health officials, Ministers and Government policy implicated in the problems, it is difficult to contend that a review conducted by officials in the Department of Health will deliver the thorough, all-encompassing, plain appraisal needed to reduce the chance of this happening again.

William Cash: I want to take my hon. Friend one tiny stage further in his answer to my question. Will he also bear it in mind that the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), was a parliamentary candidate in Stafford, and that he has taken a specific interest in this hospital, for all the right reasons? I am sure that my hon. Friend and the shadow Secretary of State will want to have a word with him about this.

Stephen O'Brien: I am absolutely sure that such words will be had. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition went to see for himself on 14 April, which is testimony to the deep personal concern that he has for this matter.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, in his close exegesis of the Colin-Thom and Alberti reviews, described why both reviews were limited in their scope. He said that the reports lacked the independence required to give them sufficient perspective on the events, to call people properly to account, or to satisfy the needs of families and survivors in Staffordshire and beyond. The reports have not given the people of Staffordshire an opportunity to make the points and to ask the questions that they feel are important. Neither Colin-Thom nor Alberti held public evidence sessions to provide an opportunity for depositions and questions to be asked by the bereaved and the survivors. As a result, the reports do not show the necessary rigour in relation to the culpability of NHS officials, the Department and the Government, either in political or executive terms. Such rigour is necessary to provide the answers for the people of Staffordshire, and to prevent such a tragedy from occurring again.

David Kidney: I cannot fully answer the hon. Gentleman's question, but I am sure that he will be pleased to know that Dr. Colin-Thom and Professor Alberti have agreed to come to Stafford and to face an audience consisting of members of the public and the relatives of those who died, in order to answer their questions. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that as a good step forward, although it does not provide a complete answer to his question.

Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He made an important speech on behalf of his constituents this evening, and I look forward to welcoming him into our Lobby this evening. I also welcome the opportunity for questions that he has just mentioned. However, as I have just said, the opportunity for those people to answer is limited by the scope of their reviews, which is never going to be as wide or as deep as that of an independent public inquiry.
	We need to ensure that we keep our discussion focused on the Ministers who have the power to make this decision, rather than on two well-respected people from civil service and departmental backgrounds. I hope that the Minister will recognise that we need to understand why lacunae exist in both reports, and tell us what role Ministers had to play in that. David Colin-Thom and Sir George Alberti are civil servants employed by the Department of Health, and have been for a number of years. They may take to heart the independence of the civil service, but I think that the House would agree that they lack independence so far as their interest as members of the Executive, through the Department, is concerned.
	For example, the House will be aware that the chief executive of the Shropshire and Staffordshire strategic health authority in 2005 to 2006 is now the chief executive of the NHS, and that the subsequent chief executive of West Midlands SHA is now the chief executive of the Care Quality Commission. A necessary requirement of any review should be to lay bare the management of the SHA between 2002 and 2008, and to provide an opportunity for the reputations of these two very senior civil servants in our NHS and the Care Quality Commission to be cleared.
	It is clear that West Midlands SHA failed in its duty of performance management; it was more bothered about Department of Health initiatives, finance and reconfigurations and relied on performance assessment bodies to consider the quality of patient care. Cynthia Bower, now of the Care Quality Commission, only once raised mortality rates, for instance, in her routine briefings to the board. It would be helpful to have an independent public inquiry at which many other issues could be addressed and Cynthia Bower and others would have an opportunity to give their side of the story.
	In the Alberti and Colin-Thom reports, there is little evidence of any rigorous treatment of the impact of the Government's policies on the trust. Although Ministers might say that the policies are in no way linked to the events that occurred, if they were that confident, would not an independent public inquiry provide a stronger opportunity for them to disprove any such link between their policies and anything that took place at Stafford general hospital?
	Three of the solutions identified by David Colin-Thom are actions that should be taken by the Department of Health. That suggests that, in his mind, there are three actions that the Department might have taken to avoid the tragedy happening. Hon. Members might assume from that that the Department of Health would be mentioned at least three times in the body of the reviewyet the Department of Health is not mentioned once in its substantive body.
	Clearly, we can see the effect of the chaos arising from the near-perennial reorganisations of the NHS and the suppression of a powerful patient and public voice. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), I hark back to the late lamented community health councils that were killed off by this Government, as they were independent and able to aggregate individual circumstances to draw general conclusions that were extremely helpful in advising Governments and the public about the performance of the NHS. We also have to remember the failure to act on events at Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells. They all had a part to play in the tragedy.
	It is vital to remember that, in his opening remarks, the Minister mentioned that there was continuing contemptcertainly on the basis of the discussions we have hadfor a real complaints process in the Care Quality Commission and the Healthcare Commission. We have advocated proper complaints processes, but they were refused by the Government, who have relied on an over-burdened and under-resourced health services ombudsman. An independent public inquiry would be able to demonstrate how these processes should work.
	In arguing the case for an independent public inquiry, it is important that both the policy and the individuals are properly scrutinised. The Secretary of State said that he remained unconvinced, but we hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who promised Julie Bailey of the Cure the NHS campaign that he would think again, will actually do so. We salute that campaign and we hope that when the Under-Secretary replies, she will do the right thing, support our motion and launch the public inquiry. On behalf of all those who are grieving and those who have suffered, we hope that she makes the best and shortest speech she has ever made and simply says yes.

Ann Keen: The events at Stafford hospital were totally unacceptable. The hospital badly let down its patients and their families, and it has let down our national health servicean institution that has been providing the very highest standards of care for more than 60 years. I worked as a nurse in the NHS for more than 25 years and whenever the tragedies, complaints and reality of what happened at Mid Staffordshire become clear to us when we read these reports, we feel shame and we feel that we have let many people down.
	I would like to thank Professor Alberti and Dr. Colin Thom for their timely and informative investigations. I am sorry that the Opposition Front-Bench team feel that their lack of independence in any way deflects from their absolutely renowned work as well-respected clinicians. I feel that the reports have, quite rightly, been critical. Those, combined with the original report of the Healthcare Commission and the ongoing reviews of individual patient records have brought, and continue to bring, rigour, clarity and understanding about what happened at Mid Staffordshire and the reasons behind it.

William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Ann Keen: My hon. Friend the Minister of State gave way so many times and I have only a few moments. I will consider giving way as I continue.
	I believe, however, that the hospital has, importantly, begun to start to make the significant improvement to patient care and safety that we were looking for and that, certainly, those who use Stafford as their hospital were looking for.
	The Healthcare Commission, the independent regulator expressly established by Parliament to scrutinise and investigate the NHS, has conducted a full investigation and produced a detailed report laying bear the failures at Stafford hospital. The reviews from Professor Alberti and Dr. Colin-Thom provide us with further reassurance in relation to the trust and greater insight into the reasons why those failures remained undetected for so long. In addition, the trust has invited in people who are not just concerned, but devastated, about the care that they or a close relativea mum or a dadreceived. What those relatives feel about the care at Mid Staffordshire goes right to the core of us as people.
	On the request for an independent clinical review, that process is under way and, to date, about 85 reviews have been requested. Those will be difficult and painful, but I believe, like many others, that the fact they are being taken in this way shows that this is the best way forward.

William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Ann Keen: In the light of that, we believe that a public inquiry would, at this stage, be time consuming

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has been talking about the question of how these matters should be conducted, but, unfortunately, the governance for NHS foundation trusts says that the board of directors of a trust

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Really, the hon. Gentleman knows well enough that he is trying to gain an intervention on the back of a point of order, which is not valid.

Ann Keen: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the House understands that I have many points, raised by hon. Members, that I want to respond to. I would like very much to try to do that.
	In the light of that, we believe that a public inquiry would, at this stage, obviously be very time consuming. It would add little more to our understanding of what happened and distract the new management and staff from improving the quality of care for local people, which we so want them to do.
	Public inquiries can be an important mechanism independently to establish the cause of a problem or a disaster, and I can understand that there are many who consider a public inquiry into the events at Mid Staffordshire to be appropriate and necessary, but in this case, even Sir Ian Kennedy, who we respect so much and who chaired the public inquiry into the tragic events at Bristol royal infirmary, has said that he does not feel that one is necessary.
	There has already been an independent examination of what went wrong and a public account of the failure at Mid Staffordshire, but if hon. Members believe that there are significant issues or lines of inquiry that have not been addressed, either by the Healthcare Commission report or by the subsequent reviews, the Secretary of State will be only too happy to consider that. That also appears to be the view of Opposition Front Benchers. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) said that even Opposition Front Benchers have not ruled out that possibility, so I am at a loss to see what is the difference between the two sides of the House.
	The report commissioned by the Secretary of State tells us

William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's strength of feeling on this matter, but that is shared by colleagues across the House. The Minister must be allowed to make her winding-up speech.

Ann Keen: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Stephen O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before there is any danger of a possible distortion of any words and any commitment that we have given, I hope that you can assist me in ensuring that the record, including that of the debate, shows that we gave an undertaking that we would look at ordering an independent public inquiry in the absence of the Government ordering one now, which is where our efforts are focused.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is also seeking to pursue the debate. I am quite sure that the record will be accurate.

Ann Keen: The record will show, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I wish in particular to mention the Royal College of Nursing. It is our understanding that since the publication of the two reviews, the RCN is calling no longer for a full public inquiry but rather for a review of any new issues.
	Many hon. Members have taken part in the debate, but the issues that the Opposition Front Benchers raised shared the theme of whistleblowing. I intend to address that, but I am sure that hon. Members will understand it if I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney).

Andrew Lansley: Will the Minister give way?

Ann Keen: I have said that I will not give way.
	The reality is that Sir George Alberti and Dr. Colin-Thom have agreed to present their findings about what happened at Stafford at a public meeting in Staffordshire. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford is facilitating that meeting, and I congratulate him on that. He is aware of the importance of the recruitment of good-quality staff at Mid Staffordshire, and that issue was raised by the hon. Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), for Stone (Mr. Cash), for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) and for Poole (Mr. Syms). My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) reminded the House of how we have to work together to see that these incidents do not happen again.
	If I may go into the heart of the problem at Mid Staffordshire, it is about reporting bad care and whistleblowing. Our next stage review by Lord Darzi is about quality and safety. We cannot have quality and safety in patient care, which is paramount to every health professional, if we do not have the appropriate work force. Every patient journey must start by having quality and being safe. We cannot have safety if we do not operate in an environment of an open culture and a management who show real leadership. That encouragement of leadership at all times throughout the review has raised the quality of leadership within the Mid Staffordshire trust.
	It was this Government who brought in a whistleblowing charter.  [Interruption.] Opposition Members may shout, but if they are concerned about the reality and quality of patient care and safety, I suggest that they work within the next stage review at all times, because the quality and safety of patient care are paramount. I appeal to the new leadership that is in place at Mid Staffordshire to get in place the consultants, nurses and health professionals who can provide a quality work force, so that they can lead quality patient care and so that Mid Staffordshire is known as a centre of excellence in future. We shall bring that about through our education and training system.
	The Prime Minister has commissioned a commission on nursing and midwifery, which I am privileged to chair. I shall attend Mid Staffordshire trust to consult nurses about how they feel things went wrong. With the serious comments that have been made in the House, we need to address why people did not feel they could report such serious incidents. From the top doctors to everyone else who works at the hospital, from the ward to the board, every one of us is responsible for patient care, and every one of us will continue to administer the quality and safety that our national health service should deliver, and that our patients have every right to expect us to deliver.
	 Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 217, Noes 260.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31 (2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	 Question agreed to.
	 The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
	 Resolved,
	That this House notes the independent report by the Healthcare Commission which identified severe failings at the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and the follow-up reports by the National Clinical Director for Emergency Care and the National Clinical Director for Primary Care which state that Stafford Hospital's accident and emergency department is now safe but that further improvements must be made at the Trust and lessons learnt by the whole NHS; further notes that the hospital has offered independent reviews of clinical records to all concerned; agrees that at the present time it would not be appropriate to establish an independent public inquiry; further agrees that management and staff at the hospital must remain focused on delivering high quality patient care; and further agrees that an independent public inquiry could add undue delay to implementing the recommendations of the above reports and therefore to the hospital delivering high quality and safe services for the local community.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Constitutional Law

That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Agriculture and Rural Development) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 1 April, be approved. (Mr. Blizzard.)
	 Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered ,
	That, at the sitting on Wednesday 20 May,
	(1) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Secretary Hazel Blears relating to Planning: National Policy Statements not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the Questions may be put after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply; and
	(2) the Motion in the name of Mr David Cameron relating to the Communications (Television Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 may be proceeded with as if Standing Orders Nos. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents) and 17 (Delegated legislation (negative procedure)), were applicable thereto. (Mr. Blizzard.)

MEMBERS' ALLOWANCES

Motion made,
	That Mr Nigel Dodds be discharged from the Committee on Members' Allowances and Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson be added. (Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leave quickly and quietly, as there is still some business to be completed?

PETITION
	  
	HIV and the G8

David Lepper: I present a petition on behalf of Rebecca Rust, Andy Au and 31 members of the City Gate church in Brighton.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of members of City Gate Church, Brighton,
	Declares that almost every minute of every day a baby is born with HIV, and that almost all of these babies are born in the world's poorest countries; further declares that nine out of ten of all new HIV infections in children are as a direct result of mother to child transmission; further declares that the impact of HIV on infants is appalling and that without specialised treatment half will not live to see their second birthday; notes that in a number of countries, HIV and AIDS is the number one cause of death in under-five year olds.
	Further declares that in rich countries the transmission of HIV from mothers to their babies has been virtually eliminated due to the availability of health care and the right drugs; notes, however, that in many low-income countries pregnant women and their babies are not receiving the same degree of care and protection; further notes that despite efforts to increase coverage of services to prevent mother to child transmission of HIV, figures from 2006 show that in low-income countries only 1 in 5 pregnant women with HIV had access to the necessary antiretroviral drugs to protect their babies.
	Further notes that this shortfall is now attracting global attention and that in 2007 leaders at the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm recognised the importance of preventing mother to child transmission of HIV and promised 1.5 billion dollars to provide access to services for all pregnant women; and believes that the UK has a key role to play in turning this G8 commitment into reality.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to outline how it intends to contribute to G8 commitments on preventing mother to child transmission of HIV, and to encourage other G8 countries to take similar action
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000368]

RIVER FORTH CROSSING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. (Mr. Blizzard.)

Willie Rennie: It is a pleasure to open this debate. I have been seeking a debate on this subject for about five months, and I am delighted to have finally secured it, but it is disappointing that the issue has not moved on in those five months. We are still debating the funding of the crossing over the River Forth. This time five months ago, I was deeply concerned about the arrangements that were in place, and the worry that the issue was causing within the community in Fife. The slow pace of progress on this important issue is matched only by the increasing concern in the local community. The longer the process takes, the more that concern grows.
	The Forth bridge was opened by the Queen in 1964, replacing the ferry from north to south. At the time, there were about 4 million crossings a year. Now the figure is about 21 million, which is much more than was expected when the bridge was constructed. That fivefold increase has put a huge strain on the bridge, leading to deterioration that means it cannot support the current volume of traffic for more than a further decade. If action is not taken to build a new crossing, we may be asking the Queen to return to launch a new set of ferries to secure the lifeline link between Fife and Edinburgh.
	The bridge is a crucial part of the east coast transport artery. A blockage at Queensferry would have major consequences for the economy of the whole of Scotland. Many businesses locate in Fife because of the transport links to Edinburgh, Glasgow and the north, and because it has easy access to the east coast main line and the airport. Thousands of commuters have moved from Edinburgh to Fife to enjoy the benefits of living in Fife while maintaining their jobs in the capital. There is no doubt that the bridge is essential, no matter what some protesters say. We cannot do without the bridge at Queensferry.
	The technical problem is that the hundreds of little cables that hold the bridge up are snapping. The deterioration is considerable, but the rate of decline is unknown, as the snapping was discovered only about four years ago. Current estimates are that the bridge has only another decade of life in it. Those estimates may change, however, as we get a better assessment of how the deterioration is advancing. If the deterioration is discovered to have slowed, the length of the life of the bridge will be longer. However, by the time that we know for sure how long the bridge has, it will be too late, so we need to construct the bridge as soon as possible.
	Despite the need to start building the bridge in 2011, there remains considerable uncertainty about the funding package. I simply do not buy the assurances of the Scottish Government that they have the funding in place. Some may say that we do not need to have the funding in place until about 2011, but businesses crave certainty, especially in these difficult economic times. We need absolute certainty so that we can give businesses in Fife the confidence that they need.
	On my tours of firms in Fife just after the new year and at Easter, I came across business after business that was deeply concerned about the crossing. They want an assurance that a bridge will be built, but they have not received one. Two years ago, John Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, agreed:
	However, the Government has yet to decide on the type of crossing that will be built and the method of financing. Those decisions will be made during the autumn
	of 2007
	so that we can make early progress on the replacement crossing and avoid having a question mark over the existence of a Forth crossing in the future.
	Those were eminently sensible comments from the Cabinet Secretary, but he has not followed through.
	In 2006, before the Scottish parliamentary elections, the leader of the Scottish National party, the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), told the Edinburgh  Evening News:
	If we have a new bridge,
	I can just imagine the right hon. Gentleman saying that
	a bond issue is definitely the way to do it. Compared like for like, bond issue against PFI, the savings would be in tens of millions, maybe even hundreds of millions. Because it's such an iconic project, that would have a wonderful take up and resonance not just in Scotland but worldwide.
	That is the so-called patriotic bonds speech. I can almost hear the pipes and drums battering away as the right hon. Gentleman made those remarks. Two years on, not one patriotic Scot has paid a single penny for those bonds. It is not because we lack patriotic Scots, but because there is a lack of sensible thinking in the SNP. As a result, the SNP has not built one school, one road, one railway or one hospital since it came to power, through that methodabsolutely nothing.

Stewart Hosie: I obviously want to stick to the narrow remit of the debate, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that the ability to take money for bonds is not permitted at the moment by the UK Government. I am sure he will confirm that the First Minister has since made the position clear, and has described the project as
	publicly funded and procured through a conventional design and build contract.
	The commitments to deliver the bridge on time are definitely there.

Willie Rennie: I am highly sceptical about those remarks, because of the First Minister's hyperbole in 2006: he knew the ruleshe knew the gamebut he made those overblown, overcommitted comments, giving people confidence that things would happen. The hon. Gentleman should not be surprised that I do not have a great deal of confidence in the First Minister's remarks or in the Cabinet Secretary's comments that it would be through capital spending that the bridge would be constructed. The First Minister must give us a greater assurance, and must spell out the sacrifices required, which he has so far refused to do. If, over three years, we spend 700 million a year, there will be massive consequences for infrastructure projectshospitals and schoolsthroughout Scotland during that period. Almost nothing else will be built. The First Minister, however, has refused to spell that out, and will not name the projects that will be cancelled. The hon. Gentleman will therefore understand why I do not have a great deal of confidence in the First Minister's remarks in that regard.
	The Civil Engineering Contractors Association confirmed my belief and is deeply concerned about the situation:
	CECA is concerned that if the Forth Replacement Crossing is paid for during the course of the works Transport Scotland will find itself unable to do much else during the forecast...years of the bridge's construction. This would mean cutting many smaller projects designed to enhance the fabric and safety of the transport network across Scotlandschemes not on the same scale as the Crossing, but of equal importance to...local communities and local economies.
	So CECA understands the consequences of the First Minister's commitment.
	I do not wish this contribution to be dominated by Scottish Executive powers, so I shall move on to the reasons why we need to reach some kind of resolution. If the SNP refuses point blank to use the powers it has within its grasp, we must seek alternative methods. After two years in power, during which the SNP Government pondered their Scottish future strategy and eventually decided that that would not be possible, they have come cap in hand to the Westminster Government for additional support. That is a humiliating U-turn on which, unsurprisingly, the SNP has gone silent.
	I give credit to Gavin Brown, a Conservative Member of the Scottish Parliament, for this analogythere seems to be a dangerous game of chicken going on between the Westminster Government and the Scottish Government. Who blinks first? Who ducks out of the road of the oncoming juggernauts? Meanwhile, uncertainty in Fife and the east of Scotland grows. Because the stakes are so high, it is essential that we achieve a resolution to the problem as soon as possible.

Stewart Hosie: When the hon. Gentleman describes a humiliating U-turn, I take it that he is describing the rather sensible proposal to go to the UK Government and ask to pay for a major capital project over a longer period than the two or three years for which the UK Government have allowed. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is not humiliating. It is a rather sensible way to repay the cost of a major capital project.

Willie Rennie: Spreading payment over 20 years is not the way the Westminster Government usually work. I do not think most Governments would commit future Governments to such spending, so it is not particularly sensible. It is humiliating, because of the First Minister's overblown hyperbole in 2006 and 2007. That is why the SNP Administration should reflect on their ideological obsession with opposing public-private partnership. I am not a strong advocate of PPP, but I recognise that it is the only game in town. It is a way of delivering projects for our communities.
	Rather than maintaining their ideological opposition, and their support for alternative methods, the SNP Administration should recognise that the bridge is more important than their ideology. Patriotic bonds sound great in opposition, but in practice they have turned out to be patriotic tosh. We need an alternative way forward.
	I am almost pleading with the Westminster Government, who I believe have a significant responsibility. By offering 1 billion, they have accepted the principle that in the present circumstance they should help the Scottish Government out of their difficulties. The trouble is that that was not new money. About 500 million was from Crossrail, which was coming anyway, and other moneys were always designated as Scottish Government funds. So the Westminster Government were not assisting with the difficulty. None the less, I welcome the fact that they have accepted in principle that they should help the Scottish Government out of their obvious difficulties.
	I plead with the Minister to come up with a new package of support so that we can get this essential bridge built across the Forthsome real new money that would resolve the difficulty. The Westminster Government have accepted in principle. Now it would be nice to see some real cash that could get us out of the present difficulties.
	However, there is a second option that the Minister could consider. If the Government were to legislate quickly, we could introduce new borrowing powers. They have been considered by the Calman commission which has been set up by the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Government. We are considering all the optionsall the funding mechanismsthat could be given to the Scottish Parliament so that it might have the real powers of a real Parliament. If the Scottish Parliament did have them, the Scottish Government would be able to use the borrowing powers to spread the cost of building that massive bridgeabout 1.7 billion to 2.3 billionover quite a long period. There would be a benefit in giving the Scottish Government the necessary powers to deliver the bridge on time, because building it on time is the absolute priority.
	On behalf of the east coast of Scotland, I am therefore pleadingalmost beggingwith the Westminster Government to help the Scottish Government out of their difficulties, either by coming up with real money that will make a difference to the construction and the costs, or by considering, through the Calman commission, the possibility of new powers for the Scottish Parliament, so that it might spread the cost of borrowing over a long period. Such an offer would bring certainty to the businesses and commuters of Fife, who need it, and avoid the childish game of chicken that seems to be taking place between the Westminster and Scottish Governments.
	I hope that the Minister will consider those recommendations. The final points are really important to the east coast of Scotland, because we need that bridge and we need it soon.

Angela Eagle: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie) on securing this important debate about funding for the new crossing over the Forth. I should clarify at the outset, however, that the Forth bridge is a devolved project, so its funding, as I think those listening to the debate will have worked out by now, is also a devolved matter. That said, everybody recognises the importance of the project and is keen to see it move forward.
	The existing Forth road bridge, as the hon. Gentleman said, has served Scotland well. I was slightly horrified to realise that I am slightly older than the bridge, but I hope that I am managing to wear my age a bit better than the first crossingalthough I think that there has been slightly less pressure on me.
	The new Forth crossing is an ambitious project. Its estimated cost is 1.8 billion, and its planned completion date is, as the hon. Gentleman said, 2017. The project is designed to enhance the connections between the transport networks of south-east and central Scotland, improving journey times and contributing to the growth of the Scottish economy. Given the position of his constituency, I can see why he is keen to see the project go forward as quickly as possible. That is why the Government have taken steps to support the Scottish Executive in proceeding with the second crossing, but, because the Government recognise that this is a devolved issue, it is for the Scottish Executive to decide whether the new bridge is necessary, which designs they should follow and how to fund it.
	I should like to make a couple of points about the UK Government's record of support for public sector investment in Scotland, a record of which we are very proud. Since devolution in 1999, the capital provision made available to the Scottish Executive has more than tripled from 1 billion to more than 3 billion a year today. That increase is enabling the Scottish Executive to modernise Scotland's infrastructureits schools, hospitals, transportand provide sound foundations for future growth and prosperity.
	In the pre-Budget report, the Government announced that they would agree to the Scottish Executive bringing forward capital spending from 2010-2011 to 2008-09 and 2009-2010 as part of a major fiscal stimulus. In total, the PBR fiscal stimulus was worth about 2 billion for Scotland, including reduced VAT. I am pleased that the Scottish Executive announced in January that, through their Scottish economic recovery programme, they are accelerating 227 million of capital spending and supporting almost 4,700 jobs in the Scottish economy. Beyond that, we recently announced in the Budget a further 104 million for the Scottish Executive to strengthen investment in Scotland during the recession.
	The Government are working with the Scottish Executive to deliver improved infrastructure and to tackle the recession. If they wish, the Scottish Executive can seek funding for private finance initiative projects from the Treasury's new PFI fund, to assist projects adversely affected by the current financial conditions to come to a successful conclusion. To date, the Executive have chosen not to do that; I suspect that that is due to an ideological objection to PFI. However, PFI is a potential route for the Executive.
	As I have said, the UK Government are keen to support progress on the new Forth crossing, and we have been proactive in seeking innovative solutions. To be helpful, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury initiated a meeting with the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth on 4 March to discuss methods of funding that the Scottish Executive might choose; the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife was right to point out that that would bring nearly 1 billion to bear. The package was one of innovative flexibilities and it was designed to try to facilitate the development of the funding package.

Willie Rennie: I recognise that there is some flexibility within the funding, but the biggest chunk of it was coming to the Scottish Government anyway. The Minister has accepted the principle that new funding should come from Westminster. Perhaps she will consider a new package.

Angela Eagle: The principle that has been accepted is in respect of increased flexibilities, some certainty on end-of-year funding, the Barnett consequentials of Crossrail and a range of other things. We are trying to say in advance to the Scottish Executive that if they were to put together a package in such a way, there would be no doubt about some of the decisions on end-of-year flexibility, so they could act with confidence.
	It is easy to say that the flexibilities contain no new money, but they account for nearly 1 billion of extra assistance. Obviously, 500 million of Crossrail-Barnett consequentials were going to Scotland anyway. It is perfectly reasonable of the Government to say that if the Scottish Executive wish to use that money to bring forward the second Forth bridge, they can do so. Some of the other parts of that package would have given certainty about the consequences of extra efficiency savings or the income from extra asset disposal. If we gave certainty, that money would, under the waiving of normal Treasury rules, be allowed to be put into the pot for funding the bridge. Saying that there is no new money is a possible analysis, but I dispute it.

Stewart Hosie: Measures were certainly suggested, but they included end-of-year funding, as the Minister rightly said. To raise the funds required for the bridge on that basis would require the Scottish Government to underspend by about 275 million a year between now and 2016-17. That would be rather foolish. It would be much better if we could simply repay the cost of the bridge over a longer period.

Angela Eagle: That is the hon. Gentleman's interpretation. In England, the Government require efficiency savings of 3 per cent. a year; in Scotland, I note, efficiency savings of only 2 per cent. are required. With a more radical look at efficiency savings, money for the bridge might be freed up. There are ways to help to put the funding together. My right hon. Friends' meeting with the Scottish Minister was about trying to give certainty in these circumstances. Efficiency savings often go straight back to the Treasury. Part of the reason for the meeting was to say that if such efficiency savings or asset disposals were successful, the Scottish Executive could keep the money. There are many areas where such pledges are not forthcoming from the Treasury; it was an attempt to be helpful. The Scottish Executive have called for borrowing against 20 years of future public funding by the Barnett formula. That is not a way that we can fund public expenditure across the UK, in Scotland or anywhere else: the systems do not work in that manner and it is not a viable option. We had the meeting to try at least to see whether we could explore a way forward, and all those issues remain on the table.
	It is also open to the Scottish Executive to propose an asset disposal plan for assets such as land and buildings that are no longer required. I can reconfirm that in this context the Treasury would be happy to consider the Scottish Executive's retention of the increased receipts that would follow in order to fund the bridge. For example, disposing of 1 per cent. of the Scottish Executive's assets in the national assets register could yield 230 million to assist in providing the funding necessary to turn the bridge into reality. The Treasury also offered the Scottish Executive the flexibility to switch from resource budget provision to capital, which provides further options for choosing how a funding package for the bridge might be put together. The package that has been offered is potentially worth 1 billion, and it illustrates how it might be possible to take the Forth bridge forward, even within the genuine constraints under which we are all operating, which must not be underestimated.
	It is therefore disappointing that the Scottish Executive have not come forward with practical proposals for adopting that or similar packages to fund the bridge. The UK Government remain ready to work in partnership with the Scottish Executive, and the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friends the Chief Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland remain on the table. We look forward to working with the Scottish Executive to find a way forward. There are clearly choices and priorities to decide on as regards the funding mechanism that will allow the bridge to proceed, and I hope that they will now be able to make some progress with that.
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife asked about the Calman report. It is not sensible for me to anticipate what may be in that report when it is published, much less, from the Front Bench in an Adjournment debate, to expand on what the Government's position on any such proposal might be. However, we know that the report is imminent, and we await its suggestions with interest.
	I look forward to being around to see the second Forth bridge become a reality. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been a doughty advocate of that. I hope that the Scottish Executive can find a sensible way forward to put the funding in place, and we stand ready to assist.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.